|Pollcy, Research, and External Affairs

- WORKING PAPERS

Education and Employmeitt

Population and Human ResourcesDepartment

The World BankJune 1991WPS 704

Costs and Financeof Higher Education

in Pakistan

Rosemary Bellewand

Joseph DeStefano

Available educational resources could be used more effectivelyby reducing the proportion of nonteaching employees - most ofthem servants - and by reallocating those resources to facultyand instructional materials. Pakistan's government should notallocate more resources to the sector until .t has establishedbetter mechanisms for allocating resources and has establishedincentives and sanctions to improve institutional performance.

The Policy. Research, and Extemnal Affairs Complex distributes PRE Working Papers to disseminate the findings of work in progress and

to enoourage the exchangc of ideas among Bank staff and all others interested in development issues. These papers canry the narnes of

the authors, reflect only their views, and should be used and cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conelusions are the

authors' own. They should not be attributed to the World Bank, its Board of Directors, its management, or any of its member countries.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Policy, Research, and External Affairs

Edction and Employment

WPS 704

This paper - a product of the Education and Employment Division, Population and Human ResourcesDepartment -is part of a larger World Bank sector study on higher education in Pakistan. C.opies areavailable free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433. Please contact CynthiaCristobal, room S6-214, extension 33640 (57 pages, with figures and tables).

Using data from colleges and universities, Student performance in examinations isBellew and DeStefano investigate the costs and consistent with the lcvel and use of resources.effectiveness of higher education in Pakistan, Most students fail examinations, particularly inidentify factors that influence those costs and crowded institutions that offer few courses. Andeffectiveness, and estimate levels of study those who pass do so largely through their owIIsubsidies. efforts, not because of the quality of teaching.

Not surprisingly, they find that most colleges There are no institutional incentives forand universities are underfunded. They operate achievement or penalties for failure. Collegeswith minimal faculty, spend little on learning and universities are not held accountable for thematerials, and cannot cut costs by enrolling more quality of instruction, cost recovery is low, andstudents (with current faculty levels) without the government demands no standards. It wouldjeopardizing the quality of education. be imprudent for the Pakistani government to

allocate more resources to the education sectorAvailable resources could be used more until mechanisms have been established for more

effectively by reducing the proportion of effectively allocating resources within andnonteaching employees - most of them servants among institutions and for establishing incen-- and by reallocating those resources to faculty tives and sanctions that create pressure toand instructional materials. improve institutional performance.

Thc PRE Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work under way in the Bank's Policy, Research. and ExtemalAffairsComplex. Anobjectiveof theseries is to getthesefindings out quickly, even ifpresentations arc less than fully polished.The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in these papers do not necessarily represent official Bank policy.

Produced by the PRE Dissemination Center

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. latroduction .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Unit Costs of Higher Education ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Personnel Expenditures ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Nonpersonnel Expenditurss ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Institutional Characteristics and Unit Costs . . . . . . . . . . . 10Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10College Characteristics .10University Characteristics .12Model .15College Cost Functions .16Conclusion .20University Cost Functions .21Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4. Effectiveness .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Pass Rates .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Variable Measures .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Intermediate Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Bachelors Results .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5. Revenues and Cost Recovery .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32University Revenue .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33University Grant Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Cost Recovery in Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35College Revenues and Cost Recovery ... . . . . . . . . . . 36Summary and Concluding Remarks ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

References ............................... . 38

Annexes . . . . 40

'This analysis was a part of a larger World Bank sector study onHigher Education in Pakistan. Ralph Harbison supei ised the studyand many Pakistani Higher Education authorities provided data, aswell as their time and insights. The paper also benefited from thecomments and support of Charles Benson, John Middleton, BashirParvez, and Adriaan Verspoor. Nasir JalAl contributed to organizingthe information in the early stages of the study.

ZC' ,Akbles

1. Distribution of the College Population and Analysis Sample by Type ofcollege and Province

2. Average Per Student Costs in Degree Colleges

3. Average Per Student Costs in Universities

4. Percentage Distribution of College and University Budgets

5. Nonteaching Staff in Colleges and lJniversity Teaching Departments byCivil Service Grade

6. Average Unit Costs and Other Indicators by College Size

7. Average Unit Costs and Other Indicators by Size, Universities 1985/86-1986/87

8. Regression Results for the College Sample

9. Regression Results for Universities

10. Percent Passing the F.A., F.S., B.A. and B.S. Exams, 1988

11. Intermediate Exam Results

12. Regression Results for Bachelor Exams

Text Figures

1. Decline in Per Student College Costs When Current Enrollment Increasesby 100

2. Decline in Per Student University Costs When Current EnrollmentIncreases by 100

3. Central Government Grants to Universities

Annexes

1. The Context of Higher Education in Pakistan

2. Data Compilation, Limitations, and Manipulations

3. Annex Tables

A.1. Per Student Expenditures and Other Indicators by College

A.2. Distribution nf University Personnel Expenditures, 1985-86 and 1986-87

A.3. Distribution of University Non-Teaching Personnel by Civil ServiceGrade, 1185-86 and 1986-87

A.4. University Enrollment, Unit Costs and Other Indicators, 1985-86 and1986-87

A.5. Means and Standard Deviations of Variables in College Regressions

A.6. Correlation Matrix for Colleges

A.7. Means and Standard Deviations of Variables in University Regressions

A.8. Correlation Matrix for Universities

A.9. Area of Universities (in ft2) Relative to Enrollment, 1985/86 and1986/87

A.10. Means and Standard Deviations of Variables in Exam Regressions

A.ll. Correlation Matrix for Variables Used in Arts Exam Regressioils

A.12. Correlation Matrix for Variables Used in Science Exam Regressions

A.13. Sources of University Income (in percent)

A.14. Average Fees and Fee Income of Universities, 1985/86 and 1986/87

A.15. Total Grants Requested by Universities (millions 1987 constant Rs),1979-89

A.16. Grants Disbursed, 1979-89 (in millions 1987 constant Rs)

COSTS AND FINANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PAKISTAN

Introduction

Recent studies on higher education in developing countries have

concluded that the expansion of higher education over past decades has

outstripped developing countries' financial and management capacities,

resulting in low quality teaching, learning and research. Low quality is

reflected in a decline in unit expenditure, a shift of recurrent expenditures

to salaries, and shortages of equipment and materials. At the same time,

available -;ources are often inefficiently used, supporting high cost small

universities and under-enrolled specialized programs, undert.ilized facilities

and faculty, and high ratios of nonteaching to teaching staff. Inefficient

finance mechanisms, poor monitoring and accounting systems, and an absence of

performance objectives and measures also makes it d1lfficulc to hold

institutions accountable for expenditures and outputs. Given these

circumstances, it is often concluded that in order to improve quality and the

financial sustainability of the system, countries should alt:er planning,

financing, monitoring, and governance practices.'

The empirical base to substantiate this description of higher

education in developing countries is narrow, however, and generally limited to

anecdotal evidence or to cross-country data aggregated at the national level.

Institutional level data on enrollment, costs and quality are not usuallv

available. Therefore, little is known about the costs of higher education and

how they vary across institutions and programs, about the effectiveness of

celleges and universities and the institutional characteristics related to

their effectiveness, or about variations in revenue and levels of cost

recovery. This exploratory analysis attempts to bridge that gap by describing

t See, for example, World Bank 1986a, 1988a, 1988b, Psacharapoulosand Woodhall 1985, Za'rour 1988, Psacharapoulos, Tan, and Jimenez 1986, Ransom1988, Winkler 1988, and Hinchliffe 1985.

. . . .. . .~~~~~~~~

the cost. effectiveness, and revenue patterns among colleges and universities

in Pakistan using institution-level data.

Section 1 presents the data set; Section 2 describes the unit of

costs of colleges and universities by type and location of college and by

universit- faculty. It also examines the distribution of expenditure by

budgetary category and the size and distribution of teaching and non-teaching

staff. Section 3 investigates economies of scale across institutions and

identifies institutional characteristics (e.g. student-faculty ratios,

student-non-faculty ratios, etc.) that explain variation in costs across

institutions. Section 4 presents college student exam pass rates and

identifies factors that explain variation in achievement across institutions.

Section 5 describes patterns of revenues and cost recovery and the grant

allocation process.

1. The Data

The data for this study were compiled from annual recurrent budget

submissions for 1985/86 and 1986/87 for each of the 20 public universities.2

The budgets were supplementea with 1985 enrollment and faculty information

published by the University Grants Commission (University Grants Commission

1987). For the purposes of the analysis, the Open University was omitted due

to the character of its delivery infrastructure, its nigh enrollment (66,000),

and low unit costs (US$ 40).

Provincial education authorities provided financial, enrollment

and personnel data for the population of 304 colleges, but missing data

reduced the analysis sample to 204. The Punjab province accounted for 99

percent of the reduction (See Table 1). The College of Education in Larkana

was also deleted from the sample because its small enrollment (12) and high

per studert expenditure (57,467 Rs) exerted a disproportionate influence on

2 The budgets were provided by the University Grants Commission.

2

the analysis results.3 (For background information on the system of colleges

and universities consult Annex 1.)

The year for which information was available varied across

institutions, however. For degree colleges, data for the Karachi region of

Sind are for 1988/89; those for the remainde. ,f the Sind province and for the

Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) are for 19 7/88. Baluchistan reported

figures for 1986/87. All university data pertain to the 1985/86 and 1986/87

academic years. Due to these variations, all expenditures 1.-ave been converted

to 1987 constant prices. Additionally, the unit costs for degree colleges

presented below probably understate the true cost of undergraduate programs.

A sizeable proportion (about 70%) of students enrolled in degree colleges are

secondary students. The budgets, however, are strictly unitary, and faculty

teach across both levels which preclude estimating separately the cost of an

upper secondary and undergraduate degree education. 'imilarly, the average

costs for universities presumably understate the cost of graduate education

and reflect those prevailing for undergraduate and certificate programs where

84 percent of university students are enrolled. (For additional details on the

compilation, limitations and manipulations of the data, consult Annex 2).

Table 1.Disftr.butla of the College Popudatiln and Analcis S amle

by Type of Cnllege and P'roaoe

Vopsilatian a1 Ana23'4 ~;up)lo

Goneral General

Profes- Proi a-Kale Female sional Total Male Female siona %I

ALL Provinces 195 96 13 304 137 56 11 204

Sind 65 28 10 103 64 28 10 102Punjab 95 57 2 15 38 17 0 55II.W.F.P. 24 8 0 32 24 8 0 32

Baluchistan 9 1 0 10 9 1 0 10Islabad 2 2 1 S 2 2 1 5

a/ College population figur were extracted fri stsry provincial reports.

3 In a multivariate analysis, tests showed that this observationexerted an extreme influence on the estimates (Cooks D - 5.713, Leverage -.967).

3

2. bhit Costs of Higher F'ucation

Given the data available, we use recurrent expenditure per student as an

estimate of unit costs. This measure excluder, capital expenditures and

personal expenses of students, such as expenditures on transportation,

lodging, and books. According to this measure, unit costs in degree colleges

averaged 2,853 Rs ($164)4 or 46.9 percent of per capita income (Table 2).5

Costs differ, however, across institutions, ranging from 727 Rs ($42 and 11.9

percent of per capita income) in the Sind College of Commerce to 9,457 Rs

($544 and 155.3 percent of per capita income) in the Government College of

Physical Education at Union Road in Karachi.'9 They also differ by type of

college and by province. Costs in professional colleges are 35 percent higher

than the average cost of general colleges (2,800 Rs). Among provinces, costs

in Sind, Punjab, and in Islamabad are lowest, averaging 2,600-2,700 Rs.

Colleges in the NWFP spend 40 percent more, and those il. Baluchistan spend 8'

percent more, per student than colleges in the other provinces.

Table 2.Average Per Student Costs in Degree Colteges

(in 1987 Rs)

MeanNumber of per student Standardcotteges recurrent cost deviatfon

All Cotleges 165 2,853 1,550

General 154 2,799 1,418Professional 11 3,790 1,349

Sind 102 2,576 1,661Punjab 16 2,604 1,097NWFP 32 3,600 892Baluchistan 10 4,801 2,340Islamabad 5 2,734 812

4 Throughout, conversions to dollar amounts refer to U.S. dollars

S The exchange rate used is 17.399 rupees per U.S. dollar asreported for 1987 by the International Monetary Fund in the rf series. Percapita income in 1987 was $350 U.S. (World Bank 1989).

6 See Appendix Table A.1 for a complete listing.

4

The average expenditi!.e per student for the 19 puiblic universities

is six to seven tines 1-igher than unit expenditure on college students. In

1986, unit costs averaged 17,407 Rs ($1,000 or 2.9 times per capita income);

in 1987, they averaged 20,960 Rs ($1,205 or 3.4 times per capita income).

They range from a low 7,015 Rs ($403) at Shah Abdul Latif Univei ity to a high

of 49,579 Rs ($2,850) at Islamic International. The average unit expenditure

is comparable to India's 1984 average of $1,000,7 however, U.S. and British

four-year public universities spend mrLe in absolute terms but less in

relation to per capita income. Around 1985, American public universities

spent eight times as much per student as their Pakistani counterparts

amounting to 53 percent of per capita itncome; British four-year public

universities spant ten times as much per student or 130 percent of per capita

income (U.S. Department of Education 1986, Shattock and Rigby 1983).

Relative to general universities, professional agricultural

universities cost about 25 percent more per student; and within general

universities, agricultural and science faculties cost more per student than

Arts' faculties, though only two general universities offer an agricultural

specialization.8 Contrary to expectations, however, engineering universities

spend about 30 percent less per student than general universities.

7 The per student expenaiture was estimated from enrollment andexpenditure data in UNESCO 1989. Per capita income in India in 1984 was 260(World Bank 1986c).

8 We were unable to compute unit costs separately for each faculty(i.e. education, law, commerce, pharmacy, etc.). The absence of Aisaggregatedexpenditure data made it necessary to group all faculties undr the .hreeheadings: arts, sciences, and agriculture.

5

Table 3.Average Per Studnbt C.sts in Unlvrsitles

Average per student expenditure (1987 es.)

AltN Faculties Arts Sciences Agriculture

All Universities1905/86 19 17.407 16.537 16.627 25.WJGeneral 12 17.871 16,537 18.190 31,300Prof. Agricultural 3 22,318 22,318Prof. Engineering 4 12,331 12,331

Alt Univemittes 19 20.960 19,905 19,551 25.5201906/87General 19 21,115 19,904 20,8S4 23,150Prof. AgrIeultural 3 27,111 27.111Prof. Engineering 4 15,883 15,883

Note: Arts includes the faculties of Art, Law, Comerce, and Education;sciences include the faculties of Science, Pharmacy, and Engineering.Agriculture 1ncludes onlt Agricuttural faculties.

Personnel Expenditures. Collsges and universities differ not only

in how much they spend per student but also in how their l ources are

allocated. Relative to univers.ties, colleges allocate a significantly larger

proportion of their budgets to salaries and allowances and a correspondingly

smaller share to nonpersonnel items. On average, colleges allocate about 93

percent of their budgets to salaries and allowances, leaving only seven

percent to cover all operational and other instructional costs (Table 4).

Universities on the other hand allocate 65 percent of their budgets to staff

compensation; but, the true proportion is probably between 65 and 80 percent

since pension payments are often reported as miscellaneous expenditure under

nonpersonnel headings.

A high percentage of personnel expenditure covers the salaries and

benefits of nonteaching staff. In colleges, 37.8 percent of the budget and

40.8 percent of all personnel expenditure support nontoaching staff; teaching

faculty account for the remaining 54.8 percent of the budget and 59.2 percent

6

of all personnel expenditure (Table 4). With few exceptions,9 all dogree

colleges show this pattern of expenditure. Among tne universities, 34.7

percent of the budget and 53.4 percent of all personnel expenditure is

allocated to support staff and administrators.

Table 4.Percentage Distribution of College od tUiversity Uudctets

Cotleges Universities a/

All Generul Professional All General Agric. Engin.

Unit Cost (Rs) 2,853 2,799 3,790 19,183 19,492 24,715 14,107

Percent of budgetatlocated to:All Personnet b/ 92.6 92.5 93.6 65.0 65.2 68.8 61.6

Faculty 54.8 55.0 50.3 30.3 30.0 35.0 27.1Non-Faculty 37.8 37.5 43.3 34.7 35.2 33.8 34.0

Non4ersornel c/ 7.4 9.2 7.5-9.4 6.4-6.7 35.0 34.8 31.2 38.4Library &Research .95-3.5 .95-3.6 .98-1.3 3.8 4.0 2.4 4.2

Other 6.5-3.9 6.6-3.9 5.4-5.1 31.2 30.8 28.8 34.3

Non-Faculty Perswset 34.7 35.7 33.8 34.0Non-teaching . . . 29.4 29.5 29.1 29.2Ackninistration . . . 5.3 5.7 4.7 4.8

a/ The figures are averages for 1985/86 and 1986/87. Refer to Appendix Table A.2for each year separately.b/ See Annex 2 for the estimation method used to comipute the college personnelexpenditure breakdown.c/ For colleges, library & research includes expenditure on library books,periodicals, magazines, chemicals, glassware, and scientific equipment. A range isgiven because colleges also receive grants for these Items which do not always appear inzhuair budget statements. For universities, expenditure on research studies is alsoincluded.

Colleges and universities spend such large shares of their

resources on personnel in part because they are commonly used as places of

employment for many unskilled Pakistanis. As a result, nonteaching staff are

numerous and their civil service grades show a strong preference for hirir.g

9 The only exceptions are colleges in Baluchistan where largerbudget shares are allocated to faculty salaries.

7

servants over personnel who directly support research and teaching, such as

teaching and research assistants and laboratory techniciaas. Nonteaching

staff account for between 75 to 90 percent of all personnel employed in

universities, outnumbering teaching staff by an average of 4 to 1 (Appendix

Table A.3). Anang colleges, the ratio of support staff to faculty averages

1:1, ranging from .4 to 2.8. 0t all nonteaching staff, between 75 to 85

percent in colleges and university teaching departments (as opposed to those

sections considered administrative)10 are drivers, gardeners, watchmen,

messengers, tea servers, clerks, etc. in the lowest grades (1 to 7) of the

civil service pay scale (Table 5). In universities, they outnumber technical

and administrative support staff (grades 8 to 16) by three to one.

Engineering universities are the exception with the lowest proportion of these

staff (62 percent) and a higher proportion of technical staff.

Table 5.Monteaching Staff in Cotleges and UniversityTeaching Departments by Civit Service Grade

Civil Service Grade a/

1 to I 8 to il 12 to 16 Total

Colleges 82.9 12.7 4.4 100General 82.7 12.7 4.6 100Professional 86.4 12.1 1.5 100

University Teach. ngDepartments b/ 75.7 11.8 12.5 100General 81.2 7.2 11.6 100Agricultural 82.2 9.7 8.1 100Engineering 62.0 21.1 16.9 100

a/ Grades 1-7 include drivers, gardeners, watchmen, messengers,etc. Grades 8-11 Include technical assistants, laboratoryassistants, library workers, and lower lovel clerical staff.Grades 12-16 include high level technical staff and theirsupervisors.b/ Figures are averages for 1985/86 end 1986/87. See AppendixTable A.3 for each acadenic year.

10 Teaching and administration sections are categories in universitybudgets. Teaching sections refer to academic departments; administrationsections include the registrar, admissions, etc.

8

Nonpersonnel Expenditures. Expenditure on nonpersonnel items

comprises the remaining seven to nine percent of college budgets and the

remaining 35 percent of university budgets. Nearly all nonpersonnel

expenditure is allocated to overhead which includes expenditures on

electricity, transportation, rent, office supplies and building maintenance;11

a very small share is allocated to research and instructional, materials such

as library books, periodicals, journals, scientific equipment, chemicals and

glassware.

Incomplete data from the colleges indicate that, on average, one

percent of college budgets is allocated to these support materials. This

amounts to 26 Rs ($1.50) per student, about the same amount that Sub-Saharan

African countries spend per primary student on instructional materials (World

Bank 1988). In addition to these allocations, however, colleges also receive

grants from provincial governments targeted for library materials, and for

scientific hardware and software. From the data provided, we could not

determine if these are reflected in the budgets. If the additional grants are

included, funds for libraries and scientific hardware and software increase to

an average of 3.5 percent of total expenditure or to 100 Rs ($5.75) per

student.

Universities invest substantially more than colleges in research

and instructional materials -- 730 Rs or $42 per student. This is because

they spend more per student generally, not because they allocate a larger

share of their budgets to teaching and learning materials. Allocations to

research, libraries, equipment, and other learning support materials average

only 3 to 4 percent of university budgets. By way of comparison, U.S and

British public universities allocate from 15 to 25 percent of their resources

(or $1,200-$2,500 per student) to research and libraries (U.S. Department of

Education 1986, Shattock and Rigby 1983).

11 As already noted, due to university accounting practices, in somecases a large share of "other expenditure" is pension payments. Since theseare technically personnel- related expenditures, the share of overheadexpenses in the budget may be overstated for colleges and universities thatinclude them in overhead.

9

3. Institutional Characteristics and Unit Costs

Framework. The variations in unit costs among colleges and

universities discussed above may reflect differences in: (1) scale economies

and their corresponding efficiency in resource use, (2) the mix of programs

offered, and (3) the quality of instruction. To test if these factors are

related to cost differences between institutions, we adopted the traditional

economic average cost framework.12 We assume that managers of degree colleges

and universities seek to minimize average unit costs subject to the

realization of a desired level. of instructional quality per pupil. Within an

institution, unit costs may be high initially because enrollment may be low at

the cutset but staff and facilities must be provided to offer a minimum number

of courses at a certain level of quality. Given this minimum number of

offerings and desired quality of instruction, an institution may, over time,

increase its enrollment and lower its average costs simply by increasing the

use of existing resources -- i.e., by increasing student-personnel ratios, the

number of hours professors teach, and/or the use of facilities. In the long

run, the decline in average costs should taper off; or, costs may begin to

increase if the variety of courses and specializations offered are broadened,

more staff are hired, and student-staff ratios fall, or if quality is to be

maintained as enrollment rises.

College Characteristics. Table 6 displays the relationship

between enrollment and unit costs among degree colleges. There is some

evidence of economies of scale. Unit costs decline quite rapidly as college

size increases from below 400 to between 1,300 and 1,600 students (column 1).

The cost associated with small student enrollment is substantial. Colleges

with enrollments of 400 or less cost 2.5 times more than colleges 3 times

larger in size. A wide variety of courses or a larger number of science

12 Although institutions of higher education, particularlyuniversities, are more accurately multi-product firms that conduct bothteaching and research, sparse data on research output and the fact that littleresearch is carried out in Pakistani colleges and universities make this aninappropriate framework for this analysis.

10

courses does not appear to explain the higher cost of small colleges. Smaller

colleges offer fewer courses in all areas (columns 7 and 8).

Table 6.Average Unit Costs and Other Indcators

by Collge Size

Percent Percent PercentPer Student/ Student/ of Budget Percent Budget Number Subjects

Student Faculty Nontch to Nontch Faculty Non- of inCost Ratio Ratio a/ Staff Grade 18+ Personnel Subjects Science

Enrollment N (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

<- 399 26 5422 1S 18 39.5 18.8 10.1 12 28.6400-699 43 3136 27 26 37.8 23.2 8.8 13 30.1700-999 31 2582 32 36 40.1 24.0 7.9 14 37.21000-1299 31 2431 35 59 39.6 24.2 7.2 16 34.41300-1599 21 2023 38 65 35.9 28.7 5.6 18 34.01600-1899 17 2373 37 40 38.4 32.0 5.4 17 43.61900-2199 12 2348 32 55 35.3 30.1 6.9 18 36.2

> 2200 23 1726 47 80 32.7 30.7 5.0 20 27.2

All 204 2853 32 46 37.8 25.5 7.4 15 33.2

a/ Data on non-teaching staff pertain to a subsample of 110 colleges. See Appendix Table A.1.

The lower unit costs among larger colleges is strongly related to

a more intense use of staff, both teaching and nonteaching (columns 2 and 3).

The number of students per faculty member increases from 15 among the smallest

colleges, peaking at an average of 47 among colleges with enrollments over

2,200. Overall, however, student-faculty ratios are astonishingly high in all

but the smallest schools.13 A similar increase is noted for student-

nonteaching staff ratios which increase from an average of 18 among the

smallest colleges to 80 in the larger ones. Correspondingly, larger schools

spend a smaller share of their resources on nonteaching staff (column 4).

The lower per student costs and higher student faculty ratios

among the larger colleges may, however, signal that lower quality education is

offered in these institutions relative to those smaller in size. In the

absence of reasonable measures of instructional quality such as test scores or

13 Student-faculty ratios average between 10 and 20 in the U.S. andEurope (UNESCO 1989).

11

pass rates on examinations,14 we use the percent of faculty in civil service

grades 18 and above and the proportion of the budget allocated to nonpersonnel

items as proxies for instructional quality. Larger colleges have a higher

proportion of more experienced, more highly educated faculty (column 5).

However, it appears that the larger proportion of more highly qualified

faculty in larger schools leaves a smaller share (only 5 percent) for overhead

and other essential inputs (column 6).

University Characteristics. Universities show similar unit cost

patterns; larger universities have lower costs (Table 7). A particularly

large drop in unit costs is evident for universities that enroll about 1,400

students or more. The four smaller universities that enroll under 1,400

students -- Islamic International, NWFP Agriculture, AJK, and QIA -- spend

about 2.5 times more than their larger counterparts.

The lower cost of large universities is again strongly related to

a more intense utilization of teaching and nonteaching staff. On average,

larger universities have 16 students per professor and 5 per nonteaching

staff; small universities havo 5 students per professor and 2 per nonteaching

staff. The costs associated with these low ratios are substantial. On

average, institutions with student-faculty ratios lower than 8:1 have unit

costs 2.5 times higher than those with ratios of 8:1 or more; and, where

student-nonfaculty ratios are 3:1 or less, unit costs are 86 percent higher.

This suggests that raising enrollment at given staff levels, particularly

nonfaculty staff levels, would substantially lower costs in small

universities. i5

Increasing enrollment, however, is only a reasonable option when

university space permits. Although classroom area per student may be a crude

14 Exam results were obtained only for a subset of colleges. Ananalysis of the results is presented in Section IV.

15 Shah Abdul Latif University, for example, had less than 1300students in 1985/86, but had a student-faculty ratio of 21:1, and one of thelowest unit costs (7,592 Rs).

12

measure of space utilization, nonetheless the data in the last column of table

7 suggest that classroom space is adequately used in eight of the 18

universities. In these institutions, classroom space per student compares

favorably with the international standard of 12.7 ft2 and all of them are high

enrollment, low cost institutions. But, four universities have very limited

space per student while six others have excessive space that might be used

more efficiently. In AJK, NWFP Agriculture, NED Engineering, and the

University of Punjab classroom space ranges between 3 and 7ft2. This suggests

that for AJK and NWFP Agriculture, both low enrollment high cost institutions,

limited classroom space may block their ability to achieve economies. In

contrast, Islamic International, Quaid-I-Azam, NWFP Engineering, Sind

Agriculture, B.Z. Multan and Islamia Bahawalpur -- all high cost small

institutions -- have excessive classroom space relative to their enrollment.

Moreover, student-faculty ratios in these three institutions are among the

lowest. Together these indicate that, given existing facilities, increased

enrollment in these six universities could result in cost savings without

driving student-faculty ratios beyond acceptable norms.

Larger universities, like larger colleges, do not appear to

sacrifice the quality of faculty for lower costs. Rather, they employ a

greater proportion of more experienced and more highly educated faculty than

do smaller schools. Among the ten largest, for example, 31 percent of faculty

are in grades 18 and above compared to an average of 25 percent in the other

schools. Given this, one might expect larger universities to allocate a

larger share of their budgets to faculty salaries and a correspondingly

smaller share to nonteaching salaries or to overhead, yet no strong patterns

support this. The functional distribution of expenditures are similar among

small and large universities, principally because larger universities have

higher student faculty ratios.

13

Table 7.Average Unit Costs and Other Indicators by Size, Universities 1985/66-1986/87

Percent of Budget on:

Salaries & AllowancesStudents Per

Percent PercentTotal Unit Nonteaching Faculty Graduate Non- Nonteaching Area/

Enrollment Cost Faculty Staff Grade 18+ Students Personnel Faculty Staff Studenttft 2 )

S ISLAMIC INTERNATION&L 461 39,423 5 1 23.1 15.1 52.7 29.3 79.5 19.4514 MWFP AGRICULTURE 727 33,563 4 2 32.1 37.4 32.5 52.8 40.2 8.221 AZAD JAMM & KASBMIR 836 31,677 5 2 17.2 20.7 31.0 38.8 37.1 2.726 QUAID-I-AZAM UNrV 1,142 35,805 5 2 29.6 81.2 31.9 43.1 32.1 32.40

19 MWFP EGNG RIXG 1,430 19,271 13 3 37.6 0.0 43.7 25.2 29.5 14.717 SHAR ABDUL LATIF 1,469 7,592 21 6 12.9 90.6 22.3 34.9 45.01S sIND ASRICULTURE 1,837 23,451 8 2 34.6 14.6 30.9 36.2 39.2 29.154 ISLAMIA U.BARAWALPUR 1,852 14,745 12 3 19.6 70.6 33.7 33.8 44.3 18.072 B. Z. MULTAN 1,869 17,453 17 3 14.0 45.7 44.6 19.1 35.4 16.283 GMAL UNIVERSITY 2,438 13,435 10 2 18.6 23.2 24.7 40.0 54.0 6.668 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 2,744 14,468 12 4 18.7 49.2 25.0 35.7 36.7 12.25

17 MEDRA ERGINEERING 3,396 14,427 15 4 28.0 6.2 36.7 32.2 36.8 12.4418 NED ENGInEERING 4,085 9,194 32 7 32.9 8.5 43.3 26.8 38.5 4.3412 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 4,621 2',828 12 3 31.1 34.7 42.2 26.1 28.1 11.2713 AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 4,922 17,131 10 3 35.9 24.5 30.2 35.4 38.8 11.1016 ENGINEERING LAHORE 5,296 13,536 17 4 47.1 4.8 30.1 31.8 37.8 14.719 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 8,387 11,431 20 7 34.5 45.4 41.9 33.5 28.9 13.2711 UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB 9,245 13,968 15 3 34.1 44.7 40.5 23.5 37.4 4.3710 UNIVERSm OP PESHAWAR 9,355 9.092 17 6 32.7 16.6 27.6 39.8 30.6 11.50

All e6,112 19,183 13 3 28.1 30.1 35.0 33.6 39.5 13.49General 44,419 19,493 13 3 23.8 39.7 34.8 33.1 40.8 13.47Agricultural 7,486 24,715 7 2 34.2 25.5 31.2 41.5 39.4 16.16Engineering 14,207 14,107 19 5 36.4 4.9 38.4 29.0 35.6 11.55

Noto: The figures in this table are averages for 1985/86 and 1986/87. Refer to Appendix A Table 2 for each year separately.

14

Model. To test statistically the strength of the relationship

between unit costs and scale economies, efficiency in resource use, the mix of

programs offered, and the quality of instruction, we move into a multivariate

analysis which assumes a minimized average cost function of the form:

AC* - f(S, X1 ... .X,; QoD PI ... Pm)

where AC* - total recurrent costs/total enrollment

S - total enrollment

Xl. Xn - a vector of exogenous factors

Q- - desired level of quality

and p... pm - input prices.

We further assume that the input prices (pl.*pPm) are the same for all

Pakistani universities and colleges.16 We estimated this equation separately

for the sample of degree colleges and the population of universities because a

Chow test showed that the structure of the cost equations were different for

the two groups17 and because data for colleges and universities were not

strictly comparable.

Several specifications of this equation were estimated for

colleges and universities to arrive at the most parsimonious model of best fit

for each. Because there is no consensus on the functional form for estimating

average costs, studies of economies of scale in education generally test the

relationship between college size and unit costs using both a quadratic and

16 This is a reasonable assumption given that 94 percent of collegeand 65 percent of university budgets are allocated to faculty salaries whichare governed by the same civil service pay scale.

17 The model estimated for the Chow test included the independent

variables: enrollment, student-faculty ratios, the proportion of faculty ingrades 18 and above, the proportion of expenditures on non-personnel items,and a dummy variable for general institutions. The model was estimated on thecombined sample of 165 degree colleges and double observations (1985/86 and1986/87) for 19 universities. The computed F-value for the Chow test wasF(8,164) - 65.05 indicating that separate equations should be estimated fordegree colleges and universities.

15

hyperbolic function.18 The former approach assumes the existence of an

optimal enrollment beyond which diseconomies set in. The latter assumes that

no diseconomies of scale as enrollment increases. Such a situation would

obtain where limits are imposed on some factors to ensure that diseconomies do

not set in, for example when student-faculty l.x ios are not allowed to fall

below a certain level (Lee 1984).

These two ftirctional forms are specified as follows:

(1) AC - al + BiENR + 1ENR 2 +E

(2) AC - a2 + 2(ENR)

College Cost Functions. The results of the multivariate

regression analysis for the sample of 204 colleges are displayed in Table 8.

Variable means and correlations are presented in Appendix Tables A.5 and A.6.

In addition to the final model, we tried a number of other specifications on

the full college sample and on a subset of colleges that reported enrollment

and faculty data by area of study and degree level. We included: (1) dummy

variables for the years for which data were reported in order to capture

changes in the economy, shifts in grant allocation policies, and the change in

civil service pay scale implemented in July 1987, (2) student-faculty ratios

in Arts and Science faculties, (3) the proportion of students enrolled in

science fields, (4) the proportion of B.A. level students, (5) student-

nonteaching staff ratios, and (6) dummy variables for the sex of the college

and if the college had been nationalized. None explained a significant

proportion of the variation in per student costs and the results are not

reported here.

Columns (1) and (2) in Table 8 display the results of estimating

the quadratic and hyperbolic formulations, respectively. The hyperbolic form

provides an unquestionably better fit for the data, explaining 54.6 percent of

the variation in unit costs among degree colleges relative to the 33.0 percent

18 See Lee 1984, Cohn 1968, Wales 1973, Watt 1980, World Bank 1986b,among others.

16

explained by the quadratic specification. Although the estimated coefficient

on enrollment2 is significantly different from zero (t-5.44), this should not

be interpreted as evidence of scale diseconomies. It is capturing the

slightly higher average costs among a small group of colleges with enrollments

between 1,600 and 2,200.19 The quadratic formulation performed consistently

less well throughout and no further results for this formulation are reported.

Table 8.Regression Results For The Cottege Slpte

Estimated Coefficients(t value)

IndependentVariable (1) (2) (3) (V)

Intercept 4717031** 1698.27** 3011.63** 1027.56**(21.92) (16.35) (18.05) (2.75)

Enrollment -2.16**(-4.28)

(Enrollment)2 0.0003** -(5.44)

(Enrollment)-l - 783049.30** 613775.07** 655729.41**(15.65) (13.88) (15.41)

Student-faculty ratio -33.54** -37.99**(-9.24) (-12.00)

Percent of budget on - - 38.63**non-teaching staff (11.08)

Percent of faculty grades 18 I - . - 12.05**(2.96)

Nuiber of subjects offered - - - 76.38**(5.84)

General College (dumy) - - . -923.14**(-4.23)

Adj R2 0.330 0.546 0.679 0.823F Statistic 50.96 244.81 216.12 157.66Number of observations 204 204 204 203

*, ** = coefficient is different from zero at the .05, and .01 or better levelsof probability.

19 See Appendix Table A.l.

17

Columns (2) through (4) display the parameter estimates for the

models that fit the data best. The results confirm the descriptive data

showing that total enrollment and student-faculty ratios explain most of the

variation (67.9 percent) in unit costs among colleges (column 3).

Economies of scale are evident in the larger degree colleges --

the larger the college, the lower the cost of educating each student; at

higher levels of enrollment the marginal effect diminishes. Given that most

expenditure is for salaries, higher student-faculty ratios are associated with

lower unit costs. Similarly, the smaller the nonteaching and administrative

share of the budget, the lower the unit cost. Holding these constant, general

colleges still cost, on average, 25 percent less (923 Rs) than professional

colleges.

Included in another specification were dummy variables for the

Baluchistan and NWFP provinces. The higher unit costs noted for these

provinc s relative to others is not significantly different from zero.

Holding consta.at the variables in the equation in column 4, thsre is no

variation in unit cost across provinces.

The estimates in column (4) suggest that cost savings associated

with increased college size are substantial for small colleges. Given an

enrollment of 400 students, a 1 percent increase in enrollment is associated

with a 3.8 and 4.1 percent decrease in unit costs, in Models 3 and 4

respectively.20 For larger colleges, unit costs become increasingly

inelastic. At the mean of 1,200 students for example, the models predict a

0.43 and 0.46 percent decrease in unit cost for a 1 percent increase in

enrollment.

20 The hyperbolic specification of the cost function permits one tointerpret the coefficient of the inverse enrollment term as an estimate of thepoint elasticity of unit expenditure with respect to enrollment. Thecoefficient is converted to an elasticity for a level of enrollment X with theformula: - A1/X

2.

18

Figur. 1 illustrates this pattern of predicted unit cost savings

ausociated with increased enrollment. Among the smallest colleges, increasLng

enrollment from 400 to 500 reaults in a prediLted savLngs of 330 Ras per

student, or 6 percent of the current average coots of small colleges.

Similarly, increaslng enrollment from 400 to the college sample average of

1,200 yields a predLcted savings of 1,092 Re per student, or a 20 percent

reduction in recurrent average costs of small colleges.

Figure 1Decline In Per Student ColIege Costs

When Current Enrollment Increases by 100

Unit Costa (Re)83000

6000

4000 -

8000 _

2000 -

1000 _

O I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' I I I I I I

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1000 1800 2000 2200Current Enrollment

Computed from estimates In column (43 and predicted at thesemple means.

19

Reductions in average costs associated with an increase in the

student faculty ratio are small; however, at low student faculty ratios these

reductions can be nontrivial. At any level of enrollment, an increase of one

student per professor is associated with a 38 Rs reduction in unit costs (1.3

percent of the mean). Similar savings could be realized by cutbacks in

nonteaching staff.

Concluston. The descriptive data and regression results support

three conclusions. First, they suggest that, on average, colleges already

operate with minimal faculty. There is little room for substantial savings by

enrolling more students at current faculty levels except among the 30 to 40

smallest colleges. Moreover, for most colleges increasing student faculty

ratios may damage the quality of education. Fully 41 percent of all colleges

already operate with student-faculty ratios of 30 or more. Additionally, the

high student-faculty ratios combined with the trivial sums that support other

operational expenses and minimum teaching and research support personnel

suggest that the quality of instruction in most degree colleges is already

low.

Second, the large cadres of administrative and support staff drive

up the per student cost of education in degree colleges. Cut-backs in these

staff could release substantial resources for instructional materials and/or

additional faculty. The feasibility of cutting back on administrative support

staff merits further investigation. The college data did nor permit a

detailed investigation of the functions of nonteaching employees. However,

eata from Karachi shows that colleges, like the universities, favor a

nonteaching staff structure weighted in favor of the lowest grades. If this

structure holds for other colleges, then clearly savings could be gained by

trimming nonteaching staff at no loss to instructional quaLity.

Finally, degree colleges with low enrollment are very expensive

relative to larger colleges. Although further investigation of these colleges

and how they come to be is required to determine the most appropriate method

of reducing the cost burden of small colleges, at least three options could be

considered -- rational criteria for allocating government funds to colleges,

20

increasing enrollment, and consolidation. Government can develop rational

criteria for allocating funds to colleg s, criteria that include a

demonstration of the demand for college education in the area and the

provision of appropriate facilities. Some of these small colleges are no more

than a few rooms in a building established with minimal planning by

politicians in order to gain the support of communities. In some colleges,

economies may be achieved by increasing enrollment, but these cases are few.

Small colleges may be more costly not because they choose to enroll fewer

students but because they have limited fecilities or are located in areas

where the demand for their programs is low. In these cases, consolidation

could be considered.

Univ3ersity Cost Functions. The results of the multivariate

analysis for the universities are presented in Table 9. The equations were

esrimated on 38 observations -- two observations for each university, one for

1985/86, the other for 1986/87. The estimates of the quadratic and hyperbo].ic

formulations are shown in columns (1) and (2) respectively. Here again, the

hyperbolic specification more adequately depicts the relationship between unit

expenditure and enrollment in universities; therefore, the reported results

are restricted to this specification.

In addition to the models presented, several other specifications

were estimated. The other variables tested included the percent of students

in science faculties, percent of certificate level students, a dummy variable

for type of university, student-overall personnel ratios, percent of

expenditure for research-related investments, total area, classroom area per

student, and academic area per student. None yielded significant or

consistent results and the models are not reported here.

Columns (3) and (5) show the extent to which variations in per

student expenditure are associated with student-faculty and student-

nonteaching staff ratios, respectively.21 Columns (4) and (6) present

21 Due to multicollinearity, it was impossible to estimate theirjoint effect.

21

estimates of the full models which include the percent of faculty above grade

18 as a proxy for faculty quality, and the proport'.on of the budget allocated

to nonpersonnel expenses to capture the cost effects of overhead. The share

of enrollment in graduate programs is used as an indicator of program mix, and

a control for the year the data represent is also introduced. The results are

similar to those reported for the college sample.

Table 9.Regresaion Results for Univeruities

Estimated Coefficients(t Value)

Independent (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)Variable

Intercept 33052.49** 11031.95** 22283.97** 5507.48 21461.97** 6936.93(9.912) (7.275) (7.501) (1.173) (6.464) (1.495)

Enrollment -6.92350* - - - -(-3.699)

(Enrollment)2 0.00050* - - - - -

(2.777)

(Enrollment)-1 - 14079809.52** 9239434.57** 9868297.24** 9874341.74** 12186566.85*0(7.363) (4.709) (4.957) (4.751) (6.627)

Student-Faculty - - -646.050* -626.34** -

Ratio (-4.180) (-4.335)

Student-Nonteaching - - - -2319.24** -1989.45**

Personnel Ratio (-3.429) (-3.450)

Percent of Faculty - - - 209.88** - 294.38*0

Above Grade 18 (2.347) (3.291)

Percent of Budget - - - 203.84** - -

On Nonpersonnel (2.066)

Percent Graduate - - - 65.26 - 81.21**

Students Enrolled (1.787) (2.125)

Year - - - 2303.91 - 2653.27

(Dummy: 1986 - 1) (1.576) (1.701)

Adj R Square 0.38 0.59 0.72 0.81 0.68 0.79P Statistic 12.267 54.219 49.248 27.167 41.089 27.656No. Observations 38 38 38 38 38 38

Note: *, 00 indicate coefficient is significant at the .05, and .01 level of probability or better.

22

Enrollment and staffing intensity alone account for 59 to 72

percent of the variation in unit costs. Larger universities have lower unit

costs. Higher student-faculty and student nonteaching personnel ratios are

associated with lower unit costs, the latter having a greater marginal effect.

Universities in 1986 spent about 2,653 Rs (20 percent) more per student than

they did in 1985, ceteris paribus. Given that the source of most university

income is government grants, this increased expenditure is largely

attributable to increased funding (See Figure 3, section IV).

Similar to the college results, the models indicate that cost per

student is fairly elastic with respect to enrollment in smaller universities.

At an enrollment level of 1,400, a 1 percent increase in enrollment is

associated with a 5 to 6 percent decrease in unit costs. For enrollment

levels at or above the mean (3,479 students), unit costs are less elastic with

respect to enrollment.

Figure 2 illustrates the predicted per student cost saving when

enrollment increases. For example, consider the enrollments in the Islamic

International and Azad Jammu & Kashmir Universities of 388 and 902,

respectively. Increasing enrollment by 100 yields an estimated 5,212 Rs

saving per student (or 13.2 percent of current unit costs) in the former

instance, and a 1091 Rs savings (3.4 percent of unit costs) in the latter.

Raising their enrollment to 3,479 -- the university average -- is associated

with a 22,597 Rs (46 percent) and 8,103 Rs (22 percent) savings, respectively.

23

Figure 2Decline In Per Student University Costs

When Current Enrollment Increases by 100

Unit Costs (Thousand Rs)60

40 -

20

10

0 I

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 8200 8600 4000 4400 4800 6200 6800 6000

Current Enrollment

Computed from estimates In column (4) and predicted at the population means.

The estimated cost savings associated with a more intense use of

nonteaching staff are also substantial; but, those associated with an increase

in student-faculty ratios are considerably smaller. The estimated decrease in

unit cost associated with an increase of one student per nonteaching staff is

1,989 Rs (10.4 percent of the mean), while an increase of one student per

faculty member, ceteris paribus, is associated with a 626 Rs (3.3 percent of

the mean) savings in unit cost.

Nonpersonnel expenditures are largely made up of overhead

expenses; research equlpment and library investments account for only 3 to 4

percent of this part of the budget. Universities that spend a higher

percentage of their budgets on overhead items have higher unit costs, all

other factors equal.

24

QnclusiLon. The analysis suggests that considerable efficiencygains can be made at current expenditure levels. Smaller universities can

lower their unit costs by increasing enrollment except where physical

limitations prevent expanded enrollment (or cases where demand is low), such

as in AJK and NWFP Agriculture. In all cases, retrenching nonteaching staff

will substantially lower unit costs. The large marginal savings associated

with more intense employment of staff, and the pattern of staffing that

disproportionately favors lower grade employees, indicate that these aspects

of university management are areas through which significant improvements in

efficiency can be made.

Substantial qualitative and efficiency improvements in university

education can also be secured through reallocative measures. Considerable

latitude exists in shifting funds across personnel and nonpersonnel components

of university budgets. On the personnel side resources devoted to

nonteaching staff could be reallocated to augment and/or upgrade teaching

faculty. For example, at B.Z. Multan only 14 percent of the teaching staff

are Grade 18 or above, and the university spends almost twice as much on

nonteaching staff as it does on teaching faculty. On the nonpersonnel side,

overhead expenses consume a large share of university budgets; a negligible

portion of the nonpersonnel budget is spent on research equipment and library

facilities. Further investigation into the details of overhead expenditures

would indicate exact areas in which adjustments could be made to release

additional resources for research equipment and teaching materials.

4. Effectiveness

The low expenditure per student and minimal learning, teaching,

and research support resources in Pakistan's colleges suggest that little is

probably taught and learned. The low pass rates of students who take the

intermediate and undergraduate exams support this conclusion.

Pass rates. Table 10 shows the percent of exam takers who passed

the 1988 F.A., F.S., B.A. and B.S. exams in a sample of colleges. On these

exams, a final score of 33 percent correct is the minimum required to pass.

25

To obtain a passing score, many parents pay their sons' and daughters'

teachers for tutoring sessions after school. Cheating is also common.22 This

notwithstanding, in 1988, only 39 percent of intermediate students (grade 12)

passed the F.A. and F.S. exams, and only one-third of undergraduate students

passed the B.A. and B.S. exams. Students attending college in the Sind

performed better than those in other provinces and women's colleges scored

consistently better than men's colleges.23 On the F.A. and F.S. exams only 34

percent of men passed compared with an average pass rate of 50 percent for

women; on the B.A. and B.S. exams only 25 percent of the men passed compared

with 50 percent of the women. These low pass rates, especially among men,

suggests that colleges do not adequately teach students what they are required

to know.

Table 10.Percent Passing the F.A., F.S., B.A. and B.S. Erm, 1988

Intermediate Undergraduate

Province Arts Science Arts Science(n) (n) (n) (n)

Sind 58 57 - -(24) (22)

Punjab 36 45 34 33(55) (54) (49) (32)

NWFP 41 14 30 31(31) (31) (15) (26)

Baluchistan - - - -

Islamabad - - 50 30(4) (4)

Male Colleges 33 35 26 24(71) (82) (46) (45)

Female Colleges 59 49 49 52(39) (25) (22) (17)

All Colleges 42 36 34 32(110) (107) (68) (62)

Note: (n) - number of colleges.

22 For example, 10 percent of students who sat for the 1988 examsadministered by the University of Peshawar were disqualified for havingcheated; and in one college affiliated with the University of Punjab, allstudents had reportedly cheated in 1989.

23 Most colleges are sex segregated, and only a small number of womenattend the few co-ed colleges.

26

One might then ask if certain college characteristics are

associated with higher or lower levels of achievement. Can these low pass

rates be explained, for example, by the low level of resources on which

colleges operate? By the breadth (or narrowness) of their course offerings? By

the minimal amount spent on teaching and learning materials? By the quality of

the professors? Or, by their high student faculty ratios?

The following sections present the results of an exploratory

regression analysis that examines the relationship between exam pass rates and

these college characteristics. The testable hypotheses are both limited and

driven by the explanatory variables available in the college data set. We do

not, for example, have data on the students' background or ability, nor on

numerous other variables -- such as the time students spend on homework, or inscience labs -- that may influence performance. Multicollinearity also

reduced the number of usable explanatory variables.

With these limitations in mind, we test the hypotheses of no

relationship between college-level exam pass rates end: (1; the degree to

which the college specializes in teaching arts or sciences, (2) the breadth of

the curriculum offered, (3) the availability of libraries, scientific

equipment and other instructional materials, (4) the quality of the faculty,

and (5) class size, while holding constant the number of students who took the

exam. The latter is introduced to control for selection since the spread of

ability is likely to be wider when the pool of students sitting for the exam

is larger. Per student expenditure was not included as an explanatory

variable because it explained no variation in pass rates (due to

multicollinearity), and because the number of students taking the exam and per

student expenditure both capcured the effect of school size. Given this, the

number of exam takers is used because it is theoretically more meaningful.

Variable Measures. The extent to which the college specializes in

teaching arts or sciences is measured as the proportion of intermediate

students or undergraduates enrolled in arts and sciences. The breadth of

curriculum is captured by the number of arts or science courses the college

offers. The availability of teaching and learning materials is measured by

27

college expenditure on libraries, scientific equipment, chemicals and

glassware as a percent of total expenditure. Faculty quality is proxied by

the proportion of faculty in grades 18 and above; and, the effect of class

size is captured by student-faculty ratios.

Model. To test the five hypotheses, we estimated the following

model for the F.A., F.S., B.A., and B.S. pass rates using OLS regression.

y Po + PlXl + 02X2 + 03X3 + P4X4 + 5 X5 + 6 X6 +e

where

Xl - the number of students who took the exam,X2 - the proportion of intermediate students or undergraduates enrolled inarts and sciences,X3 - the number of arts or science courses the college offers,X4 - expenditure on libraries, scientific equipment, chemicals and glasswareas a percent of total expenditure,X5- percent of faculty in grades 18 and above,X6- student-faculty ratio, andf - error term.

For the F.A. exams, regression equations were estimated separately for male

and female colleges because the Chow test of homogeneity showed the structure

of the equations to be different for them (F - 10.41, p < .005).

In estimating the model, we also included a dichotomous variable

for female colleges and for colleges in the Sind province (on the F.A., F.S.

exams) to test if students there still performed better after having

controlled for the college offerings, instructional inputs, and class size.

Additionally, we transformed several variables to improve the fit of the

model; however, none resulted in significant improvements. The results of the

final models estimated are presented in Tables 11 and 12 for the intermediate

and bachelor's exams, respectively. Means and correlations are displayed in

Appendix Tables A.10 to A.12.

Intermediate Results. For the intermediate exams, the college

characteristics included in the model explain from 20 to 29 percent of the

variation in exam pass rates, and yield the following results.

28

Students enrolled in colleges that specialize in the arts perform

worse than those enrolled in colleges that offer a more even mix of arts and

sciences, hereafter referred to as the more general colleges. Among all

colleges, male and female, the higher the concentration of arts students the

lower the pass rate. Students in specialized science colleges, however,

perform better than their peers in the more general colleges. This is, in

part, because specialized science colleges also offer a broader range of

science courses and this broader curriculum better prepares students for the

exams.24 Holding constant the degree of specialization in the arts or

sciences, collegas that offer a larger number of science subjects, and male

colleges that offer a broader range of arts subjects, have higher pass rates.

The hypothesis of no relationship between student-faculty ratfns

and pass rates is rejected for male arts colleges. The model in column (2)

estimates a .53 percentage point decline in the proportion of students who

pass when the number of students per faculty increases by one. But, in female

colleges and specialized science colleges student-faculty ratios are not

associated with pass rates.

Female colleges outperform male colleges in both the arts and

sciences. However for females, the characteristics of the college are not

significant predictors of their success. Because the data show few

differences among male and female colleges, women's higher exam pass rates are

probably explained by a higher degree of selection and by individual

characteristics.

24 A high degree of collinearity between the percent of students inthe field and the number of courses offered in science programs makes thedegree of specialization proxy insignificant in the model for intermediatescience exam pass rates. Earlier specifications and the raw correlationsshowed a significant and positive relationship between the percent of studentsin science programs and science exam pass rates.

29

TSblA 11.JntAMed.iate tm Results

Estimated Coefficients(t Values)

Iadependent ArtsVariable Female Male Scimaee

Intercept 89.21821 5 52.77211 £* 11.67240(5.08) (3.33) (0.94)

Number of Students -0.02081 -0.02229 -0.08657 CC

Taking Exam (-0.69) (-1.03) (-1.99)

Percent of Students -0.45850 ** -0.34155 CC 0.05143In Field (Arts or Science) (-2.55) (-2.23) (-0.29)

Number of Subjects Offered 1.41435 2.06225 4.58919 *In Field (Arts or Science) (1.22) (2.23) (2.92)

Student-Faculty Ratio -0.16663 -0.52738 ** -0.43604(-0.46) (-2.50) (-1.33)

Percent of Faculty -0.16725 -0.14536 0.37115Above Grade 17 (-0.52) (-0.62) (1.42)

Sind (dummy) 6.27127 16.71332 * 21.50163 **(0.60) (1.84) (2.01)

Female College (dumvy) - - 13.54751 **(2.01)

Adjusted R-Square 0.20 0.24 0.29F-Statistic 2.619 4.728 7.000Number of Observations 38 69 105

Note: The dependent variables are F.A. and F.S. pass rates. ^' and *indicate the estimate Is different from zero at the 5 and 10 percentlevels of probability.

Finally, students in the Sind still perform better than those in

other provinces even after controlling for the college characteristics

included in the model. The higher pass rates among males on the F.A. exam and

of all students on the F.S. exam suggest at least two things: that the Sind

has either, or both, higher quality colleges and better students, or that the

education standards there are lower and/or the exams easier.

30

Bachelors Results. Table 12 displays the regression results for

the B.A. and B.S. exams. Only two variables are associated with college pass

rates: the student faculty ratio in the B.A. regressions, and female colleges

in both the B.A. and B.S. regressions.

Students attending colleges with higher student faculty ratios

perform worse than other students. The model estimates that the percent of

students passing the B.A. exam declines by .88 percentage points when the

number of students per faculty increases by one. This suggests that, on

average, increasing enrollment in colleges at existing faculty levels will

have a deleterious effect on the quality of learning in B.A. programs.

Table 12.Regression Results for achelor Exa s

Estimated Coefficients(t-value)

IndependentVariable Arts Science

Intercept 24.124 31.107(1.55) (1.64)

Number of Students -0.001 0.002Taking Exam (-0.26) (0.03)

Percent of Students 0.242 -0.092In Field (Arts or Science) (1.62) (-0.55)

Number of Subjects Offered 0.137 -1.284In Field (Arts or Science) (0.15) (-0.50)

Percent of Expenditure on -0.427 -0.022books and equipment (-0.91) (-0.02)

Percent of Paculty 0.259 .275Above Grade 17 (1.00) (0.90)

Student-Faculty Ratio -0.877** -0.163(-2.26) (-0.36)

Female College (dummy) 15.71** 27.851**(3.03) (3.72)

Adjusted R-Square .298 .262F-Statistic 4.764 3.845Number of Observations 63 57

Note: ** and * represent significance at the 5 and 10 percentlevels of probability.

31

The exam results of female students explains nearly all the

variation in pass rates on both the B.A. and B.S. exams. Holding constant

differences among colleges in course offerings, instructional inputs and class

size, the pass rates of women are 5.7 and 27.9 percentage points higher than

those for males on the B.A. and B.S. exams, respectively.

The absence of any relationship between pass rates and the area

specialization of the college, the breadth of courses offered, the "quality"

of the faculty, and expenditures on instructional materials indicate that

achievement among undergraduates is purely random. In other words, if

students pas3, they do so as a result of their own effort, not as a result of

the quality of their education. This result and the overall poor performanc-

of students probably result from an interrelated set of supply and demand

factors. On the supply side, these outcomes may indicate that the average

quality of education is so low that most are unable to compensate for it.

Moreover, attending college costs students very little (see the following

section). They enjoy the status of being students, but since the status costs

them and their families very little, there is no built-in compulsion to learn.

On the demand side, it may be that exam passes, especially in the arts, are

not valued in the labor market and, therefore, students attribute little value

to them. All are plausible explanations which many Pakistani educators and

researchers have confirmed. This situation, however, throws into question the

reasonableness of current large Government investments in these ineffective

programs.

5. Revenues and Cost Recovery

In the previous section, we defined unit cost as total recurrent

expenditure per student. In so doing, we assumed that what universities spend

per student reflects the costs they incur to provide a year of education at a

desired level of quality, albeit low. The regression analysis confirmed our

assumptions about the factors that explain variations in unit cost among

colleges and universities, namely economies of scale and a more intense, but

not necessarily more effective, use of resources. However, it is not only the

32

intensity of input use nor the market prices of inputs that determine

expenditure per student. Since most college and university funds are provided

by Government, expenditure per student and the quality of education are also

in part determined by Government funding decisions and the processes that

govern grant requests and approvals. These, combined with low cost recovery,

leave colleges and universities under-funded, and do not encourage them to

design, plan and undertake quality improvements.

VUniversLty_Revenue. Federal grants constitute 87 percent of

university income. Ten universities depend on Government for over 90 percent

of their income; only two depend on Government for less than 70 percent of

their income (Table A.13). This stands in comparison to a 62 percent average

in India, a 65 percent average in the U.K., and a 58 percent average in the

U.S. (Shattock and Rigby 1983, Tilak 1989, U.S. Department of Education

1988).25

This heavy dependence on federal grants has historically left

universities under-funded. Since 1979, when the federal government increased

its involvement in higher education, universities have consistently received

less than they assess is necessary to provide a university education. Figure

3 illustrates the historical average difference between the grants

universities requested26 and those they received. During each of the eight

years between 1979 and 1987, universities received 30 percent less than the

amount requested. In response to these suboptimal allocations, universities

lower their actual expenditures, but rarely are they as low as the government

grant. Therefore, universities run up deficits. Between 1979 and 1987, 11

universities -- we have no data for the others -- ran up an average deficit

each of 2.6 million Rs a year (Table A.15). In 1985 and 1986 university

deficits averaged 3 percent of university expenditure.

25 Figures for the U.K. and India are for 1980; the U.S. figure isfor 1986.

26 The size of the grant requested is the university's estimatedexpenditure net of estimated income from other sources.

33

Figure 3Central (lovernment Grants to

Universities

Total Grants (Rs MilIlions)

1.400

1.200 -

1.000 Requested by Univereltits

Recommended by UGc

o00 - -DisbursedbMO

400 - Difference: Requested - Disbursed

200 - X0 I I I II

1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/86 1983/64 1984/85 1985/18 1908/87 1987/88 1988/89Year

University Grant Proceag. Under-fundlng is not the only outcome

of the sector's dependence on federal grants as its principal and nearly sole

source of inco. The grant allocatLon process itself is at best neutral

toward, and at worse disccurages, university planning, realizing higher

standards of achievement, and management and finance improvements.

In the firat step of the grant-awarding process, the university

submits its estimated budget (which although vezy detailed, often does not add

up) for a f3deral grant to the UGC. The UGC prepares a recommendation on the

size of the grant for final action by the Ministry of Finance. In determining

and explaLnlng the recommendatLon, the UGC reduces the university's detailed

budget to a two or three page brief in which only the university'. total

Lncome and expenditure are discussed, and only in terms of how they compare to

the previous year or two. Generally, the UGC recommends a lower grant than

that requested by the university and suggests that the university raise more

of its own income. The Mlnistry of .inance then decides on each university's

34

grant based on the UGC brief, and the available pool of funds for higher

education. Typically, the Ministry again cuts the size of the grant. The

repeated cuts and simplistic grant allocation process preclude responsiveness

to universities' changing needs and make improvements difficult.

Cost ReoIverEy n Univers0itie. The low level of cost recovery in

universities compounds the counterproductive effects of the grant process and

of their overdependence on government grants. Universities themselves raise

only 17 to 20 percent of their income (Table A.13); 55 percent of this income

is paid not by universicy students but by college students in exam fees.

Universities with a number of affiliated colleges, such as the Universities of

Karachi and Punjab earn over 70 percent of their non-government income from

college exam fees. We estimate that fees paid by university students

(excluding exam and hostel fees) cover only about 4 percent of unit costs

(Table A.14). This is a low level of cost recovery absolutely, and it is

lower than that found in other coun.ries in South and Ear.- Asia.27 At this

low rate, university students receive a public subsidy of about 18,400 Rs

(about $1,058), or about 3 times the 1987 per capita income.

the low level of cost recovery elicits other behavior that

damanges the efficiency and effectiveness of universities. Since students do

not pay, there is no incentive for them to complete their course of study on

time. Many of them don't which raises expenditure per graduate.28 Students

also have less leverage in effecting change. Universities are unlikely to be

very responsive to demands for better education when those demands come from

the students who invest little in their own education. But the other key

player, the Government, demands no standards. The upshot is that universities

are not held accountable for the quality of the job they do.

27 The World Bank reports user fees as percentage of unit public costfor the following countries: India - 29.1, Indonesia - 13.0, Korea - 23.4,Malaysia - 5.8, Philippines - 3.7, Thailand - 6.9, Turkey - 15.0 (World Bank1986a).

X8 Completion rates in science programs, for example, stand around 30percent.

35

Colleg Rvenueand Cost Recovery. Colleges receive most of their

revenue from the provincial government. Allocations to individual colleges in

each province are based on the number of staff in the college. In addition, a

lump sum grant for all nonpersonnel costs and a lump sum grant targeted for

library books and periodicals, for chemicals, glassware, and scientific

equipment are disbursed to each division for distribution among their

colleges. The amounts awarded vary from year to year depending on the

availabiiity of provincial resources. They also vary slightly among colleges,

although in many cases the divisional grant is simply divided equally among

the colleges. In other words, there is no rational formula for distributing

these funds.

Within this financing setting, data on income from 99 colleges (44

in the Sind and 55 in the Punjab) show that provincial grants comprise 90

percent of college revenue. Income from fees comprises the remaining 10

percent -- 12 percent in the Sind and 9 percent in the Punjab. This converts

to an average annual fee of 300 Rs in the Sind and 200 Rs in the Punjab, and

to an average annual subsidy of 2,600 Rs and 2,400 Rs in the Sind and Punjab,

respectively.

We also estimated fee revenue for all colleges in the Sind and

NWFP provinces using the posted fee schedules, and enrollment and scholarship

data.29 These estimates showed that college students in the Sind pay 330 Rs

per year while those in NWFP pay 200 Rs a year. The public subsidy to college

students is, therefore, an estimated 2,200 Rs (or 36 percent of per capita

income) in the Sind and 3,400 Rs (or 56 percent of per capita inceme) in the

NWFP.

29 Tuition and other fees in the Sind range from 275 Rs a year for anintermediate arts student to 450 Rs f r a M.S. student, and about 13 percentof all students receive scholarships averaging 525 Rs. In NWFP, fees rangefrom 270 Rs to 365 Rs a year for an intermediate arts and M.S. student,respectively. Students in the Malakand, Sohat, Dir and Chitral Districts payno fees, and about 12 percent of the remaining students in the provincereceive scholarships at an average rate of 335 Rs. Using this information andenrollment data, we arrived at estimates of fee income.

36

SummaKr and Concludiag Remarks. This analysis supports the

conclusion that higher education sector as it currently exists in Pakistan is

underfunded. University deficits increase annually, and many colleges

resemble primary schools with high student teacher ratios, low per student

expenditure, and trivial sums spent on operational expenses and instructional

materials. rhis low resource base has had a negative impact on the quality of

education, resulting in failure for the majority of college students.

It is not only the low resource base that contributes to the low

quality of education, however. Existing resources are also inefficiently

used, supporting small high cost colleges, an excessive cadre of servant

personnel, and high overhead costs in universities. Faculty and facilities

are also less than optimally utilized in many universities. Consolidating

small programs, cutting-back on nonessential staff, and increasing the

utilization of faculty and facilities could release substantial resources for

instructional materials or additional faculty.

Financing and governance practices also contribute to the low

resource base and to the inefficient and ineffective use of resources. Cost

recovery in colleges and universities is low. Although there is considerable

potential to raise student fees, institutions depend heavily on Government

funding. Yet, Government neither has standards against which to evaluate the

productivity of its investment nor does it inspect institutions' budgets,

needs, and resource flows. This cautions against allocating additional public

resources to higher education without first instituting mechanisms to

rationalize the allocation of resources within and across institutions,

linking government grants to performance criteria, targeting additional

resources toward the specific needs of individual universities and colleges,

and raising revenue from other sources, especially from university fees.

37

REFERENCES

Cohn, Elchanan. 1968. "Economies of Scale in Iowa High School Operations."JQurnal of Human Resources, vol.3, no. 4.

Shattock, Michael and Gwynneth Rigby, eds. 1983. Resource Allocation inBritish Universities. London: The Society of Research into HigherEducation.

Lee, K.H. 1984. "Further Evidence on Economies of Scale in HigherEducation." Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Education Department, mimeo.

Hinchliffe, Keith. 1985. Hi&her Education in Sub-Saharan Africa.Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Discussion Paper, Education and TrainingSeries, No. EDT3.

Psacharapoulos, George and Maureen Woodhall. 1985. Education forDevelopment: An Analysis of Investment Options. New York, OxfordUniversity Press.

Psacharapoulos, George, J.P. Tan and E. Jimenez. 1986. World Bank,Discussion Paper, Education and Training Series, No. EDT32.

Ransom, Angela. 1988. Financing Higher Eduction in Francophone West Africa.World Bank, Economic Development Institute, Report No. 12.

Tilak, Jandhyala. 1989. Trends in Public and Private Finances for Educationin India. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

UNESCO. 1989. Statistical Yearbook. Paris.

University Grants Commission. 1987. Statistics on Higher Education inPakistan. Islamabad.

U.S. Department of Education. 1986. Digest of Education Statistics 1985-86.Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.Department of Education Center for Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education. 1988. The Condition of Education: PostSecondary Education 1988. Washington, D.C.: Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement.

Wales, T.J. 1973. "The Effect of School and District Size on Education Costsin British Columbia." Internattonal Economic Review, vol.14, no. 3.

Watt, P.A. 1980. "Economies of Scale in Schools:Some Evidence from thePrivate Sector." ApRlied Economics, vol. 12, no.2.

Winkler, Donald. 1988. "Higher Education in Developing Countries: Issues,Knowledge, and a Research Agenda." (draft) Washington,D.C.: World Bank,

38

Population and Human Resources Department, Education and EmploymentDepartment.

World Bank. 1977. The Islamlc Reoublic of Pakistan ADxraisal of a ThirdEducation Project. Washington, D.C.

_. 1986a. Financing Edacation In Devlooing Countries. Washington,D.C.

. 1986b. "China Management and Finance of Higher Education."Washington, D.C.:Report No. 5912-CHA.

_ 1986c. World Development Report. Washington, D.C.

________ .1988a. Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, D.C.

_ 1988b. Efficiency and Equity in Latin American Higher Education.Human Resources Division, Technical Department, Latin America and theCaribbean Regional Office (confidential, distribution restricted).

. 1989. World DeveloRment Report. Washington, D.C.

Za'rour, George. 1988. Universities in Arab Countries. Washington D.C.:World Bank, Policy, Planning and Research Working Paper Series, Educationand Employment, Population and Human Resources Department, WPS 62.

39

ANE 1The Context of Higher Education in Pakistan

Higher education in Pakistan, like that in many developingcountries, is the product of two decades of rapid expansion. Between 1970 and1987 university enrollment increased nearly six fold from about 17,700 to134,000.1 Growth in college enrollment was equally robust over this time,although less dramatic because colleges began the 1970s with largerenrollment. In 1970, 238,000 students were enrolled in 238 arte, sciences andprofessional colleges. By 1987, 449,000 students were studying in one of the300 or so colleges.

Most post-secondary education is publicly financed. The privatesector is small, consisting of 2 universities and about 35 colleges. Moststudents are enrolled in the 300 plus provincial and federal public collegesand in the 20 public universities. Colleges and universities require the highschool F.A. degree for admission to B.A. programs and the F.S. degree foradmission to B.S. programs. Competition for undergraduate places is stiff;many applicants are rejected and science majors are often driven into thehumanities due to lack of space. Contrary to international practices, theB.A. and B.S. programs require only two years of study after grade 12.Exceptions to this rule are university programs in engineering, pharmacy, andhome economics which require four years of study, medicine and dentistry whichrequire five years and honors programs in the sciences which require threeyears of study. M.A., M.S. and M. Phil. programs are each two years inlength; Ph.D. degrees require three years of study after the Masters degree.

Public degree colleges differ from public universities in severalrespects. Colleges offer both senior high school (grades 11 and 12) andundergraduate programs. The majority of students enrolled (70 percent) aresenior high school students. Most degree colleges are sex-segregated; abouttwo-thirds are for males only. They generally offer only Bachelor programs inArts and/or Sciences, although a few offer Maoters degree programs andprofessional colleges offer specialized programs in education, commerce orhome economics.2

Provincial governments and their Education Secretariats andDirectorates of College Education are responsible for college management,

1 The 1987 figure includes enrollment in the Allama Iqbal OpenUniversity. Excluding the Open University, enrollment increased from about17,700 in 1970 to 68,000 in 1987. Figures for 1970 are from World Bank, 1977.

2 Again, it is unclear precisely how many professional colleges_here are. One estimate places them at 92; however, according to our datathere appear to be far fewer than that.

40

setting admissions criteria, and fundin2.3 College principals are responsible

for day-to-day administration, but they have little decision-making power.

The Public Service Commiosion recruits and selects staff for vacancies.4 Eachcollege's curriculum and final exams are set by its affiliated university.

The 20 public universities, on the other hand, offer the full

range of post-secondary degrees - Bachelors, Masters, M.Phil. and Ph.D.s. Alluniversities are co-educational, though men comprise 70 percent of enrollment.

The university population is composed of 7 professional universities, 12

general universities, and the Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU). The 7

professional universities offer courses of study in agriculture (3universities) or engineering (4 universities). The 13 general universitiesdiffer in the range of fields they offer. For example, the University of

Punjab, the University of Peshawar, Gomal University, and Azad Jammu & Kashmir

University (AJK) offer a variety of fields including Arts, Science, Education,Law, and Pharmacy. Islamic International specializes in Islamic Studies;

Quaid-I-Azam (QIA) is a graduate Arts and Science institution. The Allama

Iqbal Open University offers certificate and bachelor degree courses throughcorrespondence, radio, and television at regional teaching centers.

University governance lies with the provincial government whichexercises control by appointing the Provincial Governor as university

Chancellor. Staff recruitment and selection for universities is ultimatelythe responsibility of the Public Service Commission; however, universityfaculty often interview and vote for their preferred candidate. Universitiesthemselves are autonomous in managing their day-to-day affairs. This is done

through several statutory bodies - a Senate, a Syndicate, an Academic Council,

a Board of Studies, and a Research Board and Finance and Planning Committee.Universities receive most of their funding (about 90 percent) from the federalgovernment through the University Grants Commission.5 As a result,

universities are placed under the financial discipline of the federal

government.

Given the financial dependence of colleges and universities on the

public budget, in this paper, we investigate the cost of the Pakistani systemof higher education and what students actually receive for that expenditure.

Specifically, we address the following questions: What are the costs of

higher education in Pakistan? What are the components of these costs? What

institutional features explain the cost differences among universities and

3 This does not apply to the few existing federal colleges locatedin the federal territories of Islamabad Capital Territory, Federally

Administered Tribal and Northern Areas, and in the State of Azad Jammu and

Kashmir.

4 The Public Service Commission is responsible for all civil service

hiring; however, principals have the authority to hire staff in the lowest

levels of the civil service such as drivers, watchmen, and file clerks.

5 In 1974, the federal government assumed funding responsibility.

Prior to 1974, universities were included in the provincial budgets.

41

d-gree colloges? Now effective are the ilntLtutLons, and what factors explainvariations in effectivenses? What are other sourcoe of financo for highereducatLon and what is the level of *tudent subuLdy?

42

amuux 2Data Compilation, Limitations, and Maipulations

In compiling and processing the data for this analysis, weencountered four types of data problems for which we sought acceptableaccommodatione. First, there were inconsistencies between the data reportedin the budgets and those reported in government statistical documents. Weproceeded by consistently categorizing and aggregating the data in the budgetdocuments for colleges and unLversities, and for the latter, across tLme. Allfigures were checked against government statistical publications and eachdiscrepancy was investigated. In most cases, government compiled statisticswere inconsistently aggregated, and the year the data represented wasmisreported. For a few others, there were no obvious reasons for thedifferences and we maintained the consistency of the budget documents.

Second, the year for which data were reported varied acrossinstitutions. Among colleges, data for the Karachi region in the Sindprovince are for 1988/89; those for the remainder of the Bind province anddata for the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) are for 1987/88. Baluchistanreported figures for 1986/87. All university data pertain to the 1985/86 and1986/87 academic years. Due to these time differences, all expenditures forcolleges and universities were converted to 1987 rupees.

Third, expenditures were not disaggregated by degree level. Thebudgets were strictly unltary, and college faculty teach both the secondaryschool students and the undergraduates, and universLty faculty teach acrossall levels. This precluded estimating unit expenditures on different levelsof education. Because a sizeable proportion of students enrolled in degreecolleges are intermediate students (about 70 percent), the unit cost of degreecolleges probably understate the cost of undergraduate programs. Slmilarly,for universLties the average costs probably understate the cost of graduateeducation and reflect those prevailing for undergraduate and certiflcateprograms where 84 percent of unLversity students are enrolled.

Finally, expenditures on salaries and allowances for teaching andnonteaching staff, and lncome from student fees were often incomplete andinconsistent. Therefore, we estimated faculty and nonfaculty expenditures byassigning to faculty the mid-point salary for their grade and adding 15percent of base salary to account for allowances. The sum of all facultysalarLes was subtracted from total expenditures on personnel to obtain anestimate of nonteachlng personnel expenditures. Fee income was estimated byusing each univereLty's reported fee schedule and subtracting out freeshipsand scholarships. For colleges, we used two approaches. For those reportingfee income - 45 colleges in the Sind and 55 in the Punjab - we divided thereported income by enrollment, subtracted out freeships and scholarships andcompared the result to the province-wlde fee schedules. They comparedfavorably. To obtain an estimate for colleges in NWFP and for all colleges lnthe Slnd province, we used the posted provincial fee schedules, the reportedenrollment by academic level and faculty, and dLicounted the total by thevalue of freeships and scholarehips awarded. The results for the Sindprovince were comparable to those obtained using the smaller sample of 45colleges that had reported actual fee income.

43

ANNEX 3

Table Al: Per Stuftt Expenditume Other Indfcatos by Cottege (Exponditues in 19 Cerstont ft)

Student/ Student/ X of Budget X of X of Budget N0uber X SubjectsPer Student Facutty lon-Tch on Non-Tch Fctlty an Non- of In

ID College Expenditure Ratio Ratfo Staff Gradeos 18 Personoel Stbjects Science

14 SIND COLL OF CO M, HYDERABAD 727 130 167 53.7 38.9 5.1 11 9.148 G ISLAMIA ART/COM, SUKKUR 736 79 180 34.1 20.6 4.4 11 0.055 C MODEL COLL, NP'KHAS 762 104 127 49.8 18.2 4.6 12 0.046 GC GHOTKI 827 74 105 34.6 11.1 7.6 12 41.734 GC NAU'FEROZE 848 77 263 39.0 11.8 8.8 15 26.727 GC LARKANA 862 58 71 22.3 24.5 6.2 15 40.090 S.M. ARTS&COMM 944 81 87 36.3 49.2 1.9 13 7.786 G PRENIER C, NAZIMABAD 988 85 73 43.2 32.5 2.4 13 0.021 GC KAND-KOT 1020 67 54 37.8 15.4 9.7 12 33.3106 G ZAMINDAR SC COLL, GUJRAT 1020 38 . 19.5 13.0 10.3 15 40.0n GC (U), SAUDABAD 1064 63 63 33.4 3.6 5.4 14 35.796 KNURSHEED GC (U) 1103 75 92 43.8 18.8 4.4 9 0.085 NATIONAL GOV COLLEGE 1114 74 59 44.7 19.2 2.9 26 50.031 G COMH COLL, LARKANA 1120 58 87 38.1 8.3 7.7 4 0.036 GC KANDIARO 1169 73 57 51.1 16.7 7.2 15 33.326 G S.S. COLL, RANIPUR 1222 71 . 46.7 12.5 13.8 13 53.823 G SUP SCI COLL, KH'PUR 1239 56 124 40.9 17.2 8.1 12 41.742 G C& S COLL, SH'PUR 1293 47 . 23.6 62.2 8.2 13 30.812 CC GHAZALI COLL, LATIFABAD 1302 51 Ill 40.7 34.6 3.4 14 0.0n GC (U), NEW KARACHI 1323 53 51 34.2 14.8 5.9 14 42.92 C , DADU 1346 44 99 32.9 14.8 7.6 11 45.5

99 H.I.OSMANIA GC (W) 1359 58 n 43.2 14.3 3.7 9 0.0126 GC. SHAKARGARN 1365 17 . 9.4 10.0 18.8 16 37.540 GC. SHAHDADPUR 1381 52 50 42.7 19.0 6.7 14 35.735 G NENRAN COLL, MORO 1395 64 40 51.7 20.t" 7.9 11 36.475 AISHA SAVANY GC 1399 53 40 37.9 18.2 4.3 13 46.254 G I.R. (W) COLL, MP'KHAS 1407 46 112 39.5 4.5 7.0 11 36.49 GC CITY COLLEGE, HYDERABAD 1473 62 . 53.4 25.0 5.5 16 31.359 GC COP & EC 1473 52 . 33.2 51.6 4.4 12 8.379 GC ISLAMIA ARTS & CON4 1503 86 62 63.8 22.9 2.3 14 14.338 G N.A. TANDO ADAM 1511 51 38 44.0 28.6 7.4 12 61.7

105 G ZAMINDAR COLL. GUJRAT 1511 20 . 23.0 29.9 8.1 15 33.328 CC RATODERO 1546 59 37 52.2 15.4 8.8 12 41.737 GC SS COLLEGE, N'SHAH 1575 40 . 27.7 66.7 9.4 13 38.5

122 GC, DASKA 1582 20 . 22.3 16.7 10.6 13 30.819 GC JA'BAD 1620 37 . 32.6 16.7 9.3 15 33.3

101 RAUNAQ-E-ISLAN GC (W) 1622 38 17 23.9 11.1 6.2 10 0.010 GC S.N. COLL TANDO ALLAHYAR 1639 49 36 48.4 17.6 6.9 14 35.7

118 CC (C), SIALKOT 1641 27 41 11.2 33.3 6.7 24 25.016 S.A.L. (U) COLL, LATIFARAD 1645 41 55 38.8 18.8 6.4 19 26.3

116 G. ISLAMIC COLL CW), H/ABAD 1652 27 33 18.8 37.5 24.8 8 37.5175 GC, ASGHAR KALL, R/PINDI 1653 20 . 23.5 42.5 5.9 25 32.051 GC (1) SUKKUR 1660 35 48 31.6 18.5 8.1 14 42.9

115 GC (W) WAZIRABAD 1661 27 27 19.3 25.0 22.9 13 30.8111 GC, CUJRANWALA 1663 24 . 3.5 33.1 7.1 19 26.3247 GC (W), SARGODIA 1724 28 68 21.8 27.1 4.2 26 23.1107 G SIR SAYED COLL, GUJRAT 1759 26 . 34.4 17.8 9.1 13 38.5121 G ALLAIA IGBAL, SIALKOT 1764 22 . 9.8 21.1 11.3 11 45.569 C MAHN C GUNGI TOWN 1769 15 36 23.5 15.5 5.9 24 54.2

230 CC W.N. ISL, IULTAN 17m 32 34 29.5 37.5 5.608 GC, NMDI BAHA-UD-DIN 1797 33 . 9.0 23.1 33.3 15 40.08 GC S.l. COLLEGE NALA 1815 39 . 37.1 37.5 10.1 16 31.3

e'- FC OF CGSERCE, ISLAMASAD 1818 35 . 22.9 15.8 8.3 6 16.777 GC CITY COLLEGE 1821 45 48 43.5 16.1 4.5 15 40.053 C S.A.L COLL, MP'KHAS 1825 36 41 34.5 37.8 7.3 12 50.098 KHATOON-E-PAKISTAN GC (U) 1849 37 38 34.9 10.5 4.2 19 42.1

44

Tabte A.1 (Cmotimued)

Student/ Student/ X of Budget X of X of Budget Number X SubJectPer Student Faculty Non-Tch on Non-Tch Faculty an Non- of in

ID Coliege Expenditure Ratio Ratio Staff Grades 18+ Persomel Subjects ScIence

176 CC (U), KEHI NOOR, R/PINDI 1855 21 . 1.1 20.8 11.5 1S 33.3104 CC (W), GUJRAT 1856 24 38 8.5 37.3 9.7 24 29.27 CC TANDO MOHD KHAN 1873 38 87 39.9 28.0 7.7 15 33.3

120 G JINNAH ISL, SIALKOT 1880 28 . 33.8 23.7 6.9 13 38.5124 G MUSLIM COLL (U), NAROWAL 1882 19 27 21.4 17.9 14.3 17 29.447 C ISLAYIA SCI, SUKKUR 1886 44 89 51.1 12.5 7.0 12 50.0123 GC, PASRUR 1899 25 . 38.3 17.4 13.9 12 33.332 GC, N'SHAH 1920 35 . 37.1 30.3 8.1 16 31.365 CSC LANDI KORANGI 1926 53 27 52.0 20.0 5.6 15 66.756 GC TANDO JAN MONOHD 1943 42 25 50.8 21.1 7.5 11 45.533 CC CW), WISHAH 1946 31 . 31.7 19.0 8.7 12 25.0

117 GC, HAFIZARAD 1953 24 . 34.5 12.5 13.5 12 41.7167 CC (W), JHELUM 1959 27 . 24.6 35.7 5.7 25 24.029 GC (U) LARKANA 1980 39 . 45.8 0.0 10.7 11 18.2165 GC, JHELUM 1985 33 . 23.5 53.3 5.9 22 36.494 ABDULLAH 5C tW) 1997 37 49 40.1 14.9 2.3 24 29.2100 PECHS GC (U) 2014 39 82 41.9 25.0 2.7 22 36.4112 G ISLAMIA COLL, GUJRANUALA 2040 27 . 28.2 29.3 9.2 14 35.7114 G M.Z.ALI KHAN W/ABAD 2042 24 . 12.3 23.5 14.8 11 45.5171 GC,GUJAR KHAN 2043 30 . 26.5 32.0 13.6 19 26.3256 GC, BHAKKAR 2043 23 50 18.9 18.0 6.0 19 31.670 GC (W) FRERE RD 2061 35 . 32.1 35.9 2.9 25 40.0102 SIR SAYED GC (W) 2068 38 135 40.9 25.8 2.6 25 28.0

113 GC (W), GUJRANWALA 2071 22 41 7.1 34.3 10.5 26 26.9174 G V.N.C. (W) R/PINDI 2083 26 . 27.8 33.0 3.3 25 32.0110 G I.D.JANJUA(U), 1/MUSA 2091 12 27 21.6 13.3 13.6 14 28.692 ST. PATRICK'S GC 2100 40 38 45.3 13.3 4.7 1S 47.4251 GC, JAUHARABAD 2111 28 42 32.3 31.4 6.7 17 I3.5

1 G ISLANIA COLL, BADIN 2123 38 26 46.3 11.1 10.4 12 33.3162 GC, CHAKUAL 2126 27 . 29.3 34.6 5.8 21 33.3290 GC, QUETTA 2152 24 36 11.5 28.0 16.5 22 36.481 JANIA MILLIA GC 2190 35 25 35.3 47.3 4.7 18 38.9125 G ISLAMIC COLL, NAROWAL 2200 22 . 30.1 15.2 15.4 11 36.439 GC, SANGHAR 2217 38 92 49.4 22.7 7.6 13 38.557 GC UMERKOT 2217 45 20 54.1 9.1 10.0 10 50.0103 ST.JOSEPH'S GC (U) 2217 34 36 37.5 24.1 4.7 21 42.9300 FC FOR MEN, H-8 ISLAMABAD 2252 18 . 5.2 26.4 7.6 18 38.9

13 GC S.S. COHN COLL, HYDERABAD 2271 46 . 58.7 23.1 4.4 8 12.5

283 GSSC NOWSHERA 2272 37 . 51.3 34.4 4.7 16 37.5291 GC SCI, AUETTA 2273 25 25 23.6 31.8 10.3 15 53.3274 GC TIMERGARA 2277 35 . 45.6 7.4 10.8 14 35.7284 GC CHARSADDA 2310 31 . 44.5 34.1 4.1 17 41.2

71 GC (U), NAZIMABAD 2351 37 40 44.7 39.5 3.2 19 31.695 G ISLANIA COLL (W) 2385 31 53 38.1 28.2 3.5 19 10.5246 GC, SARGODHA 2391 29 37 41.7 44.4 4.0 23 26.183 JINNAN GC, NAZIKABAD 2422 35 38 44.7 29.4 3.9 17 41.293 SIRAJUDOAULLAH GC 2442 31 33 35.8 31.8 4.5 15 40.0278 GC SUABI 2504 28 . 47.1 25.7 2.6 15 40.043 G. S.A.L. COLL, SH'PUR 2508 36 . 55.5 27.3 4.2 9 0.0292 GC (W), QUETTA 2515 27 35 35.1 26.0 8.3 22 31.8264 GC HARIPUR 2521 33 . 52.0 31.3 3.9 17 35.325 GC (U), KH'PUR 2560 27 . 36.0 16.7 11.8 14 28.644 GC (W), SH'PUR 2614 39 . 50.1 72.7 10.2 6 66.7

168 GORDON COLLEGE, R/PINDI 2631 21 . 25.6 36.5 6.2 20 35.0302 FC (U), F-7/2,1SLAKABAD 2631 18 * 16.6 24.1 8.3 24 29.2119 G MURRAY COLL, SIALKOT 2685 22 . 35.8 26.1 6.4 13 38.5288 GC MATTA 2699 31 . 54.0 24.0 3.5 6 0.0

45

Vd* A.1 (coRtnLu

Student/ Student/ x of Budget X of X of Budget Niuaor X SubJectsPer Student Faculty lon-Tch on Non-Tch Faculty on Non- of in

10 Coltege Expenditure Ratio Ratio Staff Grades 18* Persomet Stbjects Science

289 GC DAGGAR 2768 25 . 41.7 18.2 6.9 13 46.2159 CC, ATTOCK 2792 23 . 26.3 51.1 14.7 23 30.428? GJC SAIDU SHARIF 2821 30 . 53.2 29.0 3.7 17 41.2271 GC NASENRA 2828 23 . 42.3 26.3 4.2 16 43.897 KARACHI COLLEGE (W) 2849 29 38 43.3 24.6 2.6 23 30.4

248 G.A.N.C., SARGODHA 2897 21 37 35.8 27.9 6.0 20 25.018 KUNS (W) COLL, HYDERABAD 2909 32 59 56.3 20.0 3.4 9 0.067 GSC LIAGUATABAD 2941 35 25 51.6 34.5 5.0 t2 58.358 GC THATTA 2942 29 21 46.1 34.8 7.8 15 38.5

267 GC KARAK 2971 23 . 41.2 27.3 7.2 17 35.391 S.N. GSC 2994 29 22 45.0 28.1 4.0 15 66.745 GC, SUKKUR 3001 24 . 44.4 32.1 5.0 17 41.2

303 FG NARGALLA (W), f-74, ISLAAAD 3023 16 . 19.5 19.7 9.1 23 30.474 ADAMJEE GSC 3051 30 13 45.8 23.3 6.0 17 64.7

169 GC SATELLITE TOW, R/PINDI 3051 22 . 35.7 57.4 5.7 20 35.0276 GC DARGAI 3051 22 . 41.8 24.0 5.0 14 42.964 G SUPERIOR SC COLLEGE 3054 24 15 30.4 48.6 5.8 19 63.2

249 CC, BHALWAL 3064 19 24 32.4 5.7 8.1 13 30.8252 GC, NIANVLI 3124 18 28 27.9 36.7 6.1 20 35.022 G WTAZ COLL, KH'PUR 3140 29 24 56.2 14.3 4.5 10 0.0

260 GC D.1. KHANI 3196 27 . 53.0 31.1 3.9 16 37.5173 GC (C), R/PINDI 3263 16 . 15.9 51.2 9.2 27 29.6262 GC (W) D.I.KHAM 3285 22 . 46.1 20.0 3.8 15 40.084 LIAWAT GC 3300 23 26 40.1 20.5 4.0 18 33.35 GC (W) NYGGRABAD 3306 30 . 55.9 39.0 5.1 21 33.3

263 GC ASBOTTABAD 3313 22 . 43.4 42.0 3.5 17 35.389 RLAK COLL OF H.E. (W) 3334 26 19 44.4 16.2 5.6 11 18.268 GSC NALIR 3335 26 19 45.2 15.6 6.0 15 26.7S0 A.M. (1) COLL, SUKUR 3345 31 . 60.9 0.0 7.2 6 0.063 GC FOR MEN 1 AZIUAD 3361 28 19 47.7 41.7 3.0 20 45.0

166 GC, P.D. KHAN 3367 29 . 23.2 33.3 7.0 18 27.888 PECHS ED FDH COLLEGE 3413 30 16 52.9 14.3 5.4 10 40.0

279 GC KIAIRABAD 3442 20 . 40.4 26.1 6.3 13 66.2259 GC LAKKI 3464 23 . 49.4 26.5 4.3 17 35.3109 GC, NDI (C) BAA-LW-DIN 3478 12 15 4.7 14.7 9.8 19 21.1

6 CC, LATIFABAD 3483 59 92 76.2 54.5 4.0 15 40.082 JANIA NILLIA GC OF ED 3506 18 23 25.8 13.3 7.6 3 33.320 GC (U) JA'BAD 3507 22 8 41.0 18.2 13.0 9 33.387 PAK SHIPOWNER GC, N.MAZINABAD 3526 26 22 48.9 22.4 3.3 17 70.6

261 GC TANK 3546 24 . 52.9 28.0 4.0 16 43.8170 GC, NURREE 3548 21 . 20.9 25.0 16.3 17 29.4275 CC THARA 3570 19 . 43.7 23.8 4.6 16 37.562 D.J. SIND GSC 3580 25 2? 44.8 36.0 4.0 19 63.2

172 GC (U),GWJAR K1A 3585 12 . 35.3 11.1 6.2 14 42.9277 GC IUUDAN 3606 19 . 46.0 23.5 2.7 17 35.380 BC ISLANIA SCIENCE 3615 23 15 46.7 19.2 2.8 19 68.4

161 GC, (W) ATTOCK 3643 16 * 27.6 33.3 9.2 22 36.478 HAJI ABDULLAH MAROON BC 3667 50 21 72.0 33.3 3.3 14 42.9

285 GFC CV) PESHAWAR 3858 20 . 50.0 28.1 c.S 20 30.0164 GC (U), CHAKWAL 3891 26 . 22.9 28.6 8.4 18 27.8163 GC, TALAGANG 3909 19 . 43.8 33.3 6.8 18 27.8

46

Tabe A1 (contiued)

Student/ Student/ X of Budget X of X of Budget Number X SubJectPer Student Faculty Non-Tch on Non-Tch Faculty on Non- of in

ID College Expenditure Ratio Ratio Staff Graebs 18+ Personnel Subjects Science

293 CC, LORALAI 3912 11 12 4.8 24.3 9.5 18 38.9254 Cc, ISAKHEL 3918 12 10 5.5 34.8 17.5 12 33.3301 FC FOR MEN, H-9 ISLASAD 3947 16 . 37.2 22.7 6.1 19 36.8286 CC (W) NOWSHERA 3969 23 . 55.0 5.9 6.3 '3 38.511 GC S.S. ARTS COLL, HYDERABAD 4020 25 28 58.2 44.4 4.0 10 0.0160 GC. PINDI CHEB 4085 18 . 39.3 26.3 12.7 19 26.3

3 C (W), DADU 4148 27 30 56.8 12.5 12.0 7 42.9269 GC HAMGU 4154 17 . 42.2 25.0 5.8 16 31.3258 GC BANNU 4219 16 . 41.6 33.3 3.3 17 35.3253 GC, (U) NIAJUALI 4314 11 16 7.6 25.0 14.8 17 35.3265 GC (W) ABBOTTASAD 4344 20 . 56.2 33.3 2.1 17 35.360 GC OF ED, F.S. AREA 4352 15 . 29.5 20.5 5.0 8 37.5

272 CC (C) NANSHERA 4372 15 . 37.5 17.6 8.1 12 33.34 GC, HYDERABAD 4373 32 . 66.8 50.8 5.4 14 42.9

268 GC KOHAT 4390 18 . 49.9 26.5 3.9 17 35.3296 GC, USTA PUNAMUAD 4403 13 13 26.8 19.4 8.8 15 46.7282 GSSC PESHAWAR 4473 19 . 50.0 37.8 6.1 16 43.866 GSC LYARI 4506 22 15 47.1 34.6 6.2 12 66.7250 GC, SHANPUR SADAR 4583 16 15 41.2 23.1 10.8 13 30.8298 GC, TURBAT 4683 15 13 32.6 18.5 16.7 17 29.4280 GC CU) NARDAN 4754 13 . 38.8 23.3 4.7 18 38.9270 GC (U) KOHAT 4805 13 . 41.1 16.0 3.8 16 37.5281 GC PESHAWAR 5008 18 . 58.1 30.9 2.3 22 27.3273 GC CHITRAL 5107 16 . 37.9 33.3 8.9 13 46.2297 GC, KHUZDAR 5173 12 12 26.9 16.1 11.5 16 31.352 G ED COLL, SUKKUR 5239 24 . 67.1 15.0 4.9 13 15.4257 GC. (U) BOAKKAR 5269 8 9 20.5 30.0 17.9 14 35.7266 GC (U) HARIPUR 5288 22 . 65.7 29.6 2.7 16 37.5127 G ISLAMIC COLL, BADDONALHI 5435 12 . 58.1 5.6 11.9 12 33.3255 GC, LIAQUATABAD 5642 10 11 21.2 20.8 13.7 13 38.524 G PAK COLL, KH'PUR 6005 10 28 34.6 18.2 6.1 9 0.029S GC, ZHOB 6104 14 9 39.5 12.5 17.1 15 40.076 ALLAMA IQ8AL CC 6119 12 13 38.7 14.5 3.5 19 31.617 0SGF (W) COLL,HYDERABAD 6791 11 38 48.7 29.4 3.3 10 0.049 A.H. SHAH COLL, ROHRI 7112 12 38 48.0 20.0 5.4 10 0.041 GC (W), SANGRAR 7124 18 . 64.0 10.0 7.8 8 12.5

294 GC, SIBI 7396 9 7 25.4 25.0 14.9 18 33.315 DR.I.H. ZUBERI H.E.COLL, HYDERABAD 8884 10 9 49.3 30.0 8.2 12 25.0

299 GC, HASTUNG 9396 11 6 51.8 35.3 10.6 17 35.361 GC PHYS ED, U RD 9457 10 . 43.4 11.1 11.7 4 25.0

All 2853 32 46 37.8 25.5 7.4 15 33.2Generat 2799 31 45 37.5 25.8 7.5 16 34.1Professional 3791 42 63 43.3 20.4 6.4 9 17.5

Sind 2567 42 54 44.0 24.3 6.1 14 32.1Punjab 2605 22 30 24.1 27.9 10.7 17 32.6NUFP 3600 23 . 47.3 26.4 4.7 16 36.9Baluchistan 4801 16 17 27.8 23.7 12.4 18 37.6Islamabad 2734 21 . 20.3 21.7 7.9 18 30.4

47

A1NEX 3Table A.2: Distribution of Univermity Persawiel Expenditures, 19B/I86 wnd 1986/37

Percent of Recurrent Expenditure on:

Unit All Non-teaching Administrative1985/86 Cost Personnel Faculty Staff Staff

1 AZAD JAI4U & KASHNIR 26,248 70.0 35.6 25.6 8.82 B. Z. NULTAN 15,995 52.4 19.4 28.3 4.73 GOHAL UNIVERSITY 14.028 74.8 31.8 40.1 2.94 ISLA4IA U.BAHAWALPUR 15,406 64.4 27.1 34.0 3.35 ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL 29,267 43.7 12.1 21.9 9.76 QUAID-1 AZAN UNIV. 37,430 70.6 39.2 26.3 5.17 SHAH ABDUL LATIF 7,015 81.4 33.6 40.0 7.88 UNIV. 'F BALUCHISTAN 14,432 72.3 31.3 33.6 7.49 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 10,679 58.6 31.8 22.4 4.510 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR 8,623 70.6 39.2 28.2 3.311 UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB 13,050 58.5 22.5 32.3 3.712 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 22,279 61.6 30.3 28.2 3.113 AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 15,716 68.5 31.7 34.2 2.614 NWFP AGRICULTURE 32,019 68.3 37.3 22.3 8.715 SIND AGRICULTURE 19,220 71.4 33.6 33.8 4.016 ENGINEERING LAHORE 11,843 69.2 31.6 33.6 4.017 MENRAN ENGINEERING 13.162 64.3 30.0 28.9 5.518 NED ENGINEERING 7,543 57.1 20.7 29.8 6.519 NWFP ENGINEERING 16,774 60.2 27.6 29.0 3.6

All 17,407 65.2 29.8 30.1 5.2General 17,871 64.9 29.5 30.1 5.4Agriculture 22,318 69.4 34.2 30.1 5.1Engineering 12,331 62.7 27.5 30.3 4.9

1986/87

1 AZAD JAHHU & KASHMIR 37,105 68.0 35.0 20.8 12.32 S. Z. PULTAN 18,911 58.5 18.9 34.1 5.53 GONAL UNIVERSITY 12,841 75.9 S2.4 39.7 3.84 ISLAMIA U.BAHAWALPUR 14,083 68.2 3G-4 34.5 3.45 ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL 49,579 50.9 13.4 26.7 10.96 QJAID-I-AZAN UNIV. 34,179 65.6 38.9 20.5 6.37 SHAH ABDUL LATIF 8,169 74.1 34.3 28.8 11.08 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 14,503 77.8 42.0 29.4 6.59 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 12,182 57.7 30.6 22.4 4.710 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR 9,560 74.2 42,8 28.1 3.211 UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB 14,886 60.6 23.5 35.5 1.612 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 27,376 54.1 25.5 26.1 2.513 AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 18,546 71.1 35.2 33.1 2.814 NWFP AGRICULTURE 35,107 66.7 39.5 22.3 5.015 SIND AGRICULTURE 27,681 66.8 32.9 28.9 5.016 ENGINEERING LAHORE 15,229 70.6 32.2 34.2 4.117 NEHRAN ENGINEERING 15,692 62.4 29.2 28.6 4.618 NED ENGINEERING 10,845 56.3 25.7 25.2 5.519 NUFP ENGINEERING 21,767 52.4 24.3 24.8 3.3

ALl 20,960 64.8 30.9 28.6 5.4General 21,115 65.5 30.6 28.9 6.0Agriculture 27,111 68.2 35.8 28.1 4.3Engineering 15,883 60.4 27.9 28.2 4.4

48

A-3

Talbe A.3: Distribution of Uhiversity Nm-Teaching Peronnme by Cvil Servce Gnrude, 198S/86

Non-Teaching Personnel by Grade Non-Teaching Persomenl in Teaching Dep't

1-11 12-16 17-22 1-7 8-11 12-161985/86 CX) CX) CX) Total CX) CX) tX) Total

I AZAD JANHU & KASHNIR 84.5 8.1 7.4 381 .

2 S. 2. MULTAN 89.6 6.8 3.6 604 86.9 6.5 6.5 1073 GOKAL UNIVERSITY 89.2 9.1 1.7 1031 98.5 0.0 1.5 2614 ISLANIA U.BAHAWALPUR 85.8 11.9 2.3 620 90.4 1.9 7.7 104S ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL 78.7 11.8 9.5 592 .

6 QVAID-I-AZAN UNIV. 82.3 13.3 4.4 542 88.3 8.6 3.1 1287 SHAH ABDUL LATIF 9i.7 4.2 4.2 240 .8 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 80.1 14.8 5.0 674 .

9 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 91.0 4.7 4.3 1330 .

10 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR 84.0 13.3 2.7 1448 70.0 9.6 20.5 76311 UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB 89.4 8.1 2.6 2939 83.6 5.6 10.8 133112 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 92.7 4.9 2.4 1548 .

13 AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 90.5 7.8 1.7 1929 82.3 9.4 8.4 119814 NUFP AGRICULTURE 86.3 5.6 8.1 431 81.2 11.3 7.5 18615 SIND AGRICULTURE 92.8 4.6 2.6 887 .16 ENGINEERING LAHORE 85.2 12.1 2.7 1399 64.7 18.0 17.3 51017 MEHRAN ENGINEERING 91.3 4.6 4.1 761 66.8 30.2 3.0 30118 NED ENGINEERING 87.8 7.4 4.8 607 53.1 27.6 19.4 19619 NIFP ENGINEERING 85.4 11.8 2.8 458 66.2 12.3 21.5 195

All 87.3 8.7 4.0 18,421 77.7 11.7 10.6 5,280General 86.6 9.3 4.2 11,949 86.3 5.4 8.4 2,694Agriculture 89.9 6.0 4.1 3,247 81.7 10.3 7.9 1,384EngineerIng 87.4 9.0 3.6 3,225 62.7 22.0 15.3 1,202

1986/81

1 AZAD JAJMJ & KASHNIR 78.2 9.7 12.1 504 80.7 11.0 8.3 32728. Z. MULTAN '69.5 7.0 3.6 674 86.6 6.3 7.1 1273 GONAL UNIVERSITY 88.0 9.8 2.2 1099 87.6 7.1 5.4 2984 ISLA9IA U.BAHAWALPUR 86.5 11.2 2.3 667 80.1 5.6 14.4 3415 ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL 81.9 9.4 8.7 658 63.3 23.3 13.3 306 QUAID-I-AZAN UNIV. 80.1 13.2 6.8 532 64.2 5.7 30.1 1767 SHAH ABDUL LATIF 88.8 3.4 7.8 268 .

8 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 79.6 15.4 5.0 735 70.6 6.3 23.1 2219 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 89.5 5.9 4.6 1338 .

10 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR 85.9 11.5 2.6 1491 70.9 10.1 19.1 78611 UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB 90.3 8.7 1.0 3068 81.4 5.9 12.7 144412 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 92.9 5.0 2.1 1647 .13 AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 89.8 8.3 1.9 1935 81.8 9.4 8.8 121214 NUFP AGRICULTURE 86.5 8.7 4.9 473 80.8 9.1 10.1 19815 SIND AGRICULTURE 91.9 4.3 3.8 879 85.6 9.0 5.5 82416 ENGINEERING LAHORE 82.1 15.1 2.8 1456 64.4 10.6 25.1 53117 NEHRAN ENGINEERING 87.8 8.6 3.6 977 52.4 33.6 i4.1 42018 NED ENGINEERING 86.7 8.5 4.8 632 62.6 24.6 12.8 38219 UWFP ENGINEERING 84.6 12.3 3.0 462 66.0 12.0 22.0 209

ALt 86.3 9.3 4.4 19,495 73.7 11.8 14.5 7,526General 85.9 9.2 4.9 12,681 76.1 9.0 14.8 3,750AgrIculture 89.4 7.1 3.5 3,287 82.7 9.2 8.1 2,234EngIneerIng 85.3 11.1 3.5 3,527 61.3 20.2 18.5 1,542

49

AN 3 3

Tabte A.4: Uvserfity Euwoltent, thit Costs wd Other Indicators 1985/%6 and 1966/ST

Percent of: Percent of Recurrnt ExpenditureAreaYTotal Unit Studentsl Students/ FacuLty Graducte Non- Non-teaching Student19BS/86 Enroltlent Cost Faculty Non-teachers Grade 18+ Students Persomel Faculty Staff (Sqft)

1 AZAD JARIU & KASHNIR 769 26.248 5 2 13.1 25.2 30.0 41.5 40.1 2.932 B. Z. NULTAN 1,723 15,995 14 3 13.2 43.5 47.6 23.7 40.3 17.553 GONAI UtIVERSITY 2,326 14,028 10 2 18.7 22.1 25.2 39 5 53.3 6.964 ISLANIA U.BAIAWALPUR 1,488 15,406 11 2 21.6 66.4 35.6 33.5 4S.1 21.61S ISLANIC INTERNATIONAL 534 29,267 6 1 24.6 14.0 56.3 32.1 84.1 16.376 QUAID-I-AZAN tNIV. 1,007 37,430 5 2 25.4 81.1 29.4 43.2 34.6 36.237 SHAN ABDUL LATIF 1,275 7,015 21 5 6.7 29.7 18.6 34.7 49.38 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 2,738 14,432 14 4 13.2 49.1 27.7 27.2 35.8 12.279 tUIVERSITY OF KARACHI 8,645 10,679 20 7 35.0 43.7 41.4 35.9 30.3 12.8610 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR 9,265 8,623 17 6 31.1 16.4 29.4 42.2 33.9 11.6111 UNIVERSITY OF PUIJAB 9,067 13,050 18 3 33.3 40.2 41.5 26.0 41.7 4.4512 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 4,60? 22,279 11 3 31.6 34.5 38.4 28.8 29.7 11.3013 AGRIOJLTURE FAISALABAD 4,892 15,716 10 3 25.7 22.2 31.5 37.3 43.4 11.1714 lffP AGRICWLTtRE 687 32,019 4 2 29.3 35.8 31.7 53.5 4.4 8.6715 SID AGRIJLTUIRE 1,823 19,220 8 2 26.8 14.6 28.6 40.8 45.9 29.3616 ENGINEERING LAUORE 5,194 11,843 17 4 46.0 4.9 30.8 37.2 44.3 14.9917 NENRAN ENGINEERING 2,755 13,162 14 4 27.4 7.1 35.7 37.4 42.8 14.7818 NED ENGINEERING 4,024 7,543 38 7 33.3 7.5 42.9 23.4 41.0 4.4019 VIFP ENGINEERING 1,468 16,774 13 3 37.6 0.0 39.8 27.5 32.4 14.31ALl 64,278 17,407 14 3 26.0 29.4 34.8 35.0 42.8 13.99General 43,444 17,871 13 3 22.3 38.8 35.1 34.0 43.3 14.01Agriculture 7,402 22,318 7 2 27.3 24.2 30.6 43.9 44.6 16.40E,gineerIng 13,441 12,331 20 5 36.1 4.9 37.3 31.4 40.1 12.12

50

Tte A.4: contimd

Percent of: Percent of Recurrnt ExpenditureArea/

Total Unit Students/ Ft.adents/ Faculty Graduate Non- Non-teahing Student1966/87 Enrollment Cost Faculty Non-teachers Grade 18+ Students Personnel Faculty Staff 1Sqft)

1 AZAD JAU & KASHMIR 902 37,105 4 2 21.4 16.1 32.0 36.1 34.1 2.502 B. 2. NULTAN 2,015 18,911 19 3 14.8 48.0 41.5 14.5 30.6 15.013 GORAL UNIVERSITY 2,549 12,841 10 2 18.6 24.4 24.1 40.6 54.6 6.354 ISLAJUA U.CAKAUALPUR 2,215 14,083 13 3 17.6 74.7 31.8 34.0 42.4 14.525 ISLANIC INTERNATIONAL 388 49,579 4 1 21.5 16.2 49.1 26.7 74.9 22.536 QUAID-I-AZAN UNIV. 1,277 34,179 5 2 33.9 81.4 34.4 43.0 29.6 28.577 SHAN ABDUL LATIF 1,662 8,169 20 6 19.1 29.5 25.9 35.2 40.76 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 2,750 14,503 9 4 24.2 49.3 22.2 44.1 37.6 12.229 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 8,128 12,182 19 6 34.0 47.0 42.3 31.1 27.5 13.6810 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAR 9,445 9,560 16 6 34.4 16.9 25.8 37.4 27.4 11.3911 UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB 9,423 14,886 18 3 34.9 49.2 39.4 21.1 33.2 4.2812 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 4,635 27,376 12 3 30.5 35.0 45.9 23.5 26.4 11.2313 AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 4,951 18.546 10 3 46.1 26.8 28.9 33.5 34.3 11.0314 NWFP AGRICULTURE 767 35,107 4 2 34.8 39.0 33.3 52.2 36.0 7.7715 SIND AGRICULTURE 1,850 27,681 8 2 42.4 14.7 33.2 31.6 32.6 28.9316 ENGINEERING LAHRE 5,398 15,229 17 4 48.3 4.7 29.4 26.4 31.4 14.4317 EHRAJI ENGINEERING 4,036 15,692 16 4 28.6 5.4 37.6 27.1 30.7 10.0918 NED ENGINEERING 4,145 10,845 25 7 32.4 9.4 43.7 30.1 36.0 4.2719 NIWfP ENGINEERING 1,391 21,767 12 3 37.5 0.0 47.6 22.9 26.5 1S.10

All 67,927 20.960 13 4 30.3 30.9 35.2 32.2 36.1 12.99General 45,389 21,115 12 3 25.4 40.6 34.5 32.3 38.2 12.93Agriculture 7,568 27,111 7 2 41.1 26.8 31.8 39.1 34.3 15.91Engineering 14,970 15.883 18 5 36.7 4.9 39.6 26.6 31.2 10.97

51

AMIN 3

Table A.S: _ ensd Stinudrd Devisatios of Variables in College

Regresions

Mean st. dev.

Per student expendfture 2853 1549.86Enrolltent 1207 893.20Enrollment 0.001 0.001Student-faculty ratio 31.72 18.50Percent of budget on non-faculty 37.81 14.35Percent of faculty grades 18 + 25.42 11.99Number of subJects offered 15.34 4.68General college (dimwy) .946 .226

Table A.6: Correlation Matrix for Colleges

(1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (7)

(1) Per student exp.(2) Enroltment, -.489(3) Enrollment .740(4) Student/faculty ratio -.632 .440 -.400(5) Faculty grade 18+ -.000 .273 - .233 -.024C6) Percent expend on non-faculty .225 -.092 .093 .283 -.052(7) NuTber of subjects -.075 .484 -.436 -.204 .318 -.305(8) General college -.145 .071 -.202 -.127 .101 -.092 .353

Table A.7: neans and Standard Deviatfon of Variables in thiversityRegressions

Variable Mean St. Dev.

Per student expendIture 19,183.4 9,976.13Enrollment 3,479.3 2,815.23Enrollment 1 .0005 .0005Student-faculty ratio 13.1 6.97Student-non-teaching staff ratfo 3.4 1.69Percenr of faculty grades 19.+ 28.1 9.91Percent of graduate students 30.1 21.88Percent of expenditure onnonpersonnel 35.0 8.38

Table A.8: Correlation Matrfx For thinversities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

(1) Per student expenditure.2) Enrollnent1 -0.532(3: Enrollment 0.775 -0.689(4) Students/faculty -0.752 0.493 -0.590(5) Students/non-teaching staff -0.713 0.579 -0.590 0.828(6) Faculty grades 18 -0.006 0.448 -0.322 0.113 0.167(7) X graduate students 0.164 -0.050 0.020 -0.210 -0.177 -0.314(a) X expenditure on nonpersoumel 0.271 0.022 0.240 0.116 -0.078 0.169 -0.118(9) Year 0.180 0.0345 -0.029 -0.057 0.016 0.219 0.036 0.019

52

A 3

Teble A.9: Area of unIverities In Sqiure Feet Relative to Erolbet, 19E5/86 *nd 19J6f87

Total Academic Class HostelUnit Area/ Area/ Area/ Area/

1985/86 Cost Student Student Student Student

1 AZAD JAIIU & KASHNIR 26,248 226.4 42.3 2.9 58.42 8. Z. MULTAN 15,995 171.9 98.2 17.6 73.73 GONAL UNIVERSITY 14,028 220.7 64.9 ,.0 83.84 ISLANIA U.BAHAWALPUR 15,406 417.1 164.3 27.1 125.15 ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL 29,267 304.8 81.5 16.4 113.56 QUAID-1-AZAM UNIV. 37.430 783.5 401.7 36.2 194.77 SHAH ABDUL LATIF 7,0158 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 14,432 165.1 98.1 12.3 35.19 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 10,679 89.9 39.2 12.9 29.9

10 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR 8,623 281.7 44.4 11.6 47.111 UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB 13,050 342.2 92.7 4.5 125.212 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 22,279 376.1 118.6 11.3 104.313 AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 15,716 734.7 87.9 11.2 121.414 NUFP AGRICULTURE 32,019 454.4 148.4 8.7 247.415 SIND AGRICULTURE 19,220 453.5 193.7 29.4 196.916 ENGINEERING LAHORE 11,843 403.0 110.3 15.0 132.317 NEHRAN ENGINEERING 13.162 233.2 61.2 14.8 141.418 NED ENGINEERING 7,543 114.8 52.5 4.4 45.419 NUFP ENGINEERING 16,774 385.7 185.1 14.3 159.3

All 17,407 342.2 114.7 14.3 113.0General 17,971 307.2 111.4 14.5 90.1Agriculture 22,318 547.5 143.3 16.4 188.6Engineering 12,331 284.2 102.3 12.1 119.6

1986/87

1 AZAD JANMU & KASHMIR 37,105 193.0 36.1 2.5 49.82 B. Z. WJLTAN 18,911 147.0 84.0 15.0 63.03 GOMAL UNIVERSITY 12,841 201.4 41.0 6.3 76.54 ISLANIA U.BAHAUALPUR 16,375 260.1 102.5 16.9 78.05 ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL 49.579 419.5 112.1 22.5 156.26 QUAID-I-AZAN UNIV. 34,179 617.9 316.7 28.6 153.57 SHAH ABDUL LATIF 8,1698 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 14,503 164.4 97.7 12.2 34.99 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 12,182 95.6 41.7 13.7 31.8

10 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR 9,560 276.3 43.5 11.4 46.211 UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB 14,886 329.3 89.2 4.3 120.512 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 27,376 373.8 117.8 11.2 103.613 AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 18,546 725.9 86.8 11.0 120.014 NWFP AGRICULTURE 35,107 407.0 132.9 7.8 221.615 SIND AGRICULTURE 27,681 446.9 190.9 28.9 194.016 ENGINEERING LAHORE 15,229 387.8 106.1 14.4 127.317 NEHRAN ENGINEERING 15,692 159.2 41.7 10.1 96.518 NED ENGINEERING 10,845 111.5 51.0 4.3 44.119 NUFP ENGINEERING 21,767 407.1 195.3 15.1 168.1

All 20,960 318.0 104.8 13.1 104.8Generat 21,115 279.8 98.4 13.1 83.1Agriculture 27,111 526.6 136.9 15.9 178.5Engineering 15,883 266.4 98.5 11.0 109.0

53

Tdble A.10: Mans *nd Stndsrd OcatIrons of VarIble in Ear Regression

Varlable N Neen St. Dev.

Pass rate: Arts 110 42.3 22.234Pass rate: Scfence 107 38.5 29.468uder sat for arts *xm 110 196.0 133.010Muber *at for scencf e s 107 74.0 72.33Percent nrolled in Arts 194 51.2 31.644Percent enrolled In Scfenc* 194 41.3 31.019Nu br of arts stbJects offered 203 10.0 3.439Nudbr of scienc subJects offered 203 5.0 2.619Student-faculty ratio 204 32.0 186503Percent of fultty bove grade 17 204 25.5 11.988

Table A.11: Cwrelftifan Natrix fwr Variables ued in Arts ExsJ Reserslom

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

(1) Pass rate: Arts(2) Esaber of students 0.131

who * t for Arts e*xa(3) Percent of students -0.119 0.0234

enrolled In Arts(4) Number of Arts *uJects 0.312 0.547 0.374(5) Student-faculty ratio 0.019 0.310 -0.362 -0.098(6) Percent of faculty at -0.056 0.157 -0.070 0.275 -0.024

grade 16 or higher(7) Percent of expenditure -0.252 -0.255 0.163 -0.165 -0.225 -0.141

for nn-percis oel(8) Sind (dwy) 0.383 0.238 -0.566 -0.306 0.547 -0.101 -0.319(9) Fetle collee (duny) 0.557 0.276 0.429 0.294 -0.113 -0.115 -0.003 0.011

Table A.12: Cwrelatfmn atrix for Variables Used fn Scfence Exa Eeressgmns

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

(1) Pass rate: Scfence(2) huer of stdts that -0.245

sat for Scfence exm(3) Percent of students 0.177 0.303

enrolled In Science(4) Number of Science 0.409 0.149 0.446

*ubJects(5) Student-fwaulty ratfo -0.044 0.063 0.017 -0.235(6) Percent of faculty at 0.118 0.346 0.036 0.206 -0.0240

gradb 18 or hfgher(7) Percent of expendfture 0.026 -0.327 -0.035 -o.on -0.225 -0.141

for non-personv l(8) Slfd (dummY) 0.326 -0.149 0.339 -0.183 0.546 -0.101 -0.319(9) FPale college (duwy) 0.190 -0.299 -0.290 -0.054 -0.113 -0.115 -0.003 0.011

54

Tible A.13. Sourcm of UnIws1ty lnaD (in p )

1985/86Cov t 0ow Other Interest

10 Nam Grant Resources Inca. Inc=o Total

1 AZAD JAIU & KASHNIR 84.3 15.7 0.0 0.0 1002 B. Z. MULTAN 70.0 24.4 4.9 0.7 1003 GONAL UNIVERSITY 92.8 5.4 1.9 0.0 1004 ISLANIA U.BAHAIEALPUR 92.3 7.7 0.0 0.0 1005 ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL 90.6 4.2 5.2 0.0 1006 QUAID-I-AZAN UNIV. 85.5 8.1 0.0 6.4 1007 SHAH ABDUL LATIF 93.5 6.5 0.0 o.n 1008 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 88.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 1009 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 75.9 23.5 0.6 0.0 100

10 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR 79.1 16.1 4.9 0.0 10011 UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB 63.6 35.4 0.5 0.4 10012 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 81.0 18.1 0.9 0.0 10013 AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 85.6 2.9 6.2 5.2 10014 NWFP AGRICULTURE 91.1 8.9 0.0 0.0 10015 SIND AGRICULTURE 89.0 9.5 0.0 1.4 10016 ENGINEERING LAHORE 85.9 6.8 7.0 0.4 10017 NEHRAN ENGINEERING 91.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 10018 NED ENGINEERING 92.6 6.8 0.0 0.5 10019 NUFP ENGINEERING 88.3 11.7 0.0 0.0 10020 ALLAMA IQ8AL OPEN UNIV 71.5 27.8 0.6 0.2 100

Total 84.6 13.0 1.6 0.8 100

General 83.0 14.8 1.6 0.6 100Agricultural 88.6 7.1 2.1 2.2 100Engineering 89.4 8.6 1.8 0.2 100Open University 71.5 27.8 0.6 0.2 100

1986/87

1 AZAD JAISS & KASHMIR 76.1 23.9 0.0 0.0 1002 B. Z. MJLTAM 70.4 23.8 4.9 0.9 1003 GONAL UNIVERSITY 94.8 5.2 0.0 0.0 1004 ISLANIA U.BAHAWALPUR 92.9 7.1 0.0 0.0 1005 ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL 94.3 5.7 0.0 0.0 1006 QUAID-I-AZAN UNIV. 92.1 6.1 0.0 1.8 1007 SHAH ABDUL LATIF 92.2 7.8 0.0 0.0 1008 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 90.5 9.5 0.0 0.0 1009 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 84.1 15.9 0.0 0.0 100

10 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR 82.0 13.5 4.4 0.0 10011 UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB 66.1 32.3 1.2 0.3 10012 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 84.1 14.8 1.1 0.0 10013 AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 90.2 2.1 4.8 2.8 10014 NWFP AGRICULTURE 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 10015 SIND AGRICWLTURE 90.8 7.9 0.0 1.2 10016 ENGINEERING LAHORE 91.2 8.8 0.0 0.0 10017 NEHRAN ENGINEERING 92.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 10018 NED ENGINEERING 95.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 10019 NWFP ENGINEERING 90.8 9.2 0.0 0.0 10020 ALLANA IODAL OPEN UNIV 69.5 29.2 0.7 0.6 100

Total 86.6 1i £ 0.9 0.4 100General _..u i t.0 0.2 100Agricultura -- O. 1.6 1.4 100Engineering . . 7.6 D. Q 0.0 100Open UniversIty 69. ^ .7 0.6 100

55

AEN 3

Tebtd A.14. Armug Fe mrd Fee Incm of Uhiversities, 19/86 and 196/

1985/86 1986/87

Fee Income Fee InsaceFees as X Fees as X

Average of Unit Per as a X of Average of Unit Per as a X ofFee Cost Student Unit Cost Fee Cost Student Unit Cost

IIAZAD JAMIJ & KASHMIR 544 2.1 309 1.2 508 1.4 228 0.62 B. Z. JULTAN 898 5.6 919 5.7 840 4.4 849 4.53 GOIAL UNIVERSITY 710 5.1 481 3.4 664 5.2 453 3.54 ISLANIA U.BAHAVALPUR 636 4.1 555 3.6 595 4.2 514 3.75 ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL 736 2.5 278 0.9 688 1.4 285 0.66 WUAID-I-AZAN UNIV. 491 1.3 382 1.0 459 1.3 357 1.07 SHAH ABDUL LATIF 392 5.6 343 4.9 367 4.5 319 3.98 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 595 4.1 262 1.8 557 3.8 226 1.69 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 238 2.2 236 2.2 222 1.8 229 1.9

10 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAUAR 394 4.6 227 2.6 368 3.9 207 2.211 UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB 339 2.6 291 2.2 317 2.1 277 1.912 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 487 2.2 415 1.9 456 1.7 389 1.413 AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 350 2.2 376 2.4 328 1.8 349 1.914 NIIFP AGRICULTURE 723 2.3 516 1.6 676 1.9 463 1.315 SIND AGRICULTURE 462 2.4 429 2.2 432 1.6 401 1.416 ENGINEERING LAHORE 472 4.0 372 3.1 442 2.9 348 2.317 NENRAN ENGINEERING 1,737 13.2 807 6.1 1,624 10.3 725 4.618 NED ENGINEERING 1,927 25.5 660 8.7 1,802 16.6 662 6.119 NWFP ENGINEERING 973 5.8 752 4.5 910 4.2 703 3.220 ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIV 293 46.6 176 28.0 274 38.7 150 21.2

Average 670 7.2 439 4.4 626 5.7X 407 3.4XExcludirg Open University 690 5.1 453 3.2 645 3.9X 420 2.5X

Note: Each uIversity has a schedule of fees for each faculty and degree program. Aggregate fee figures ware obtained forarts and science faculties at the certificate, bachelors, and graduate levels. The averages are unweighted means of theseaggregates. Hostel fees are not included.

56

AM=EX 3

Table A.15. Totat Grants Requestd by UniversitIes (.111tcns 1987 comtsnt Rs), 1979-a9

1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89

1 AZAD JAKIU & KASHMIR 30.424 20.067 22.240 22.302 27.765 27.760 40.100 39.1692 B. Z. NULTAN 17.697 17.795 41.168 22.452 22.743 22.816 24.267 26.039 29.815 32.4343 GONAL UNIVERSITY 32.962 37.947 37.138 26.358 30.014 30.548 30.277 37.056 36.61? 40.3284 ISLANIA U.BAHAWALPUR 17.210 16.863 23.143 25.564 26.963 26.275 36.612 38.350 41.964 42.338S ISLAMIC INTERNATIOMAL 23.179 29.310 39.715 65.629 54.517 95.873 58.301 69.9576 QUAID-I-AZAM UNIV. 44.433 50.740 46.389 43.147 43.127 41.859 37.328 44.449 45.090 46.1547 SHAH ABDUL LATIF 4.984 22.000 32.4408 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 33.265 31.573 30.873 36.356 48.037 37.741 34.999 37.730 42.396 40.6029 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 83.723 85.997 61.255 65.178 72.273 84.594 75.783 88.827 99.514 103.20610 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR 89.099 88.638 75.382 89.401 87.480 71.752 74.501 84.301 90.844 102.57511 UNIVERSITY aF PUNJAB 98.249 89.956 93.924 91.477 88.574 82.210 83.019 102.060 123.008 151.0802 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 75.866 76.952 77.680 63.178 97.363 74.826 93.721 107.655 101.550 111.2243 AGRICUILTURE FAISALABAD 70.537 68.150 63.476 73.573 86.238 88.482 77.010 89.529 93.685 107.34114 NWFP AGRICUWLTURE 15.971 20.961 19.364 21.562 25.322 25.441 31.032 37.01915 SIND AGRICULTURE 35.453 31.161 31.188 33.633 36.823 38.341 45.130 47.945 60.710 61.08116 ENGINEERING LAHORE 70.656 67.632 49.067 51.585 62.057 59.373 73.231 70.603 78.179 84.71717 HEHRAN ENGINEERING 28.956 25.958 31.504 32.827 42.279 43.418 48.996 48.327 61.484 70.99318 NED ENGINEERING 31.486 29.007 38.962 26.245 35.358 43.085 53.187 51.307 52.673 60.05719 NWFP ENGINEERING 15.609 22.018 30.344 25.027 29.193 28.016 33.549 36.45820 ALLAKA IOBAL OPEN UNIV 32.637 31.583 29.714 29.907 38.783 38.763 36.786 39.460 46.114 50.613

Total 762.230 749.951 816.045 803.237 929.7M 918.605 961.643 1095.713 1188.625 1319.784

Table A.16. Grants Disbursed, 1979-89 (.f1tfons 1987 conutant Rs)

1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89

1 AZAD JAMMU & KASHNIR 0.653 11.116 11.522 14.656 15.453 18.658 25.441 27.303 28.5622 8. Z. WULTAN 11.046 11.138 12.191 12.269 16.925 19.544 21.102 24.368 27.336 28.3343 GONAL UNIVERSITY 14.758 19.072 20.226 20.039 23.995 26.602 28.876 31.776 36.599 38.1424 ISLANIA U.BAHAWALPUR 10.539 11.334 12.228 12.407 17.314 19.343 21.213 24.551 27.496 29.4795 ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL 0.915 16.802 17.278 26.051 33.446 37.095 42.679 52.761 47.3276 QUAID-I-AZAJI UNIV. 27.904 27.411 28.731 28.607 29.683 30.951 33.319 37.559 38.598 44.1027 SHAH ABDUL LATIF 3.442 18.419 18.3798 UNIV. OF BALUCHISTAN 19.676 18.004 20.128 21.228 27.163 29.255 31.986 34.579 37.788 40.0789 UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI 49.931 47.908 50.463 52.569 62.123 62.784 70.424 82.201 85.209 86.56710 UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR 50.411 66.688 38.144 41.122 48.830 52.341 58.752 72.247 77.7M 80.05711 UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB 60.713 54.622 57.964 56.492 68.019 69.269 82.319 98.384 106.532 109.59912 UNIVERSITY OF SIND 50.564 46.229 48.654 49.578 57.297 56.624 67.241 82.629 81.451 85.80713 AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 48.001 43.789 47.086 45.647 55.589 58.039 65.526 75.836 83.846 85.36014 NWFP AGRICuLTURE 0.439 10.184 13.106 16.078 18.296 19.991 22.907 25.874 27.37415 SIND AGRICULTURE 18.732 19.072 20.467 19.763 23.883 25.843 31.097 38.165 43.413 46.39316 ENGINEERING LAHORE 37.882 36.637 39.390 38.016 43.963 46.070 54.420 63.159 68.960 68.87517 MEHRAN ENGINEERING 18.741 17.393 18.861 20.172 26.692 32.517 34.762 39.906 44.191 44.89218 NED ENGINEERING 17.859 16.935 18.288 19.011 24.614 26.518 29.517 35.262 37.371 37.74419 NUFP ENGINEERING 0.710 10.828 12.798 17.195 19.813 22.323 25.513 29.056 29.87020 ALLANA IQBAL OPEN UNIV 16.337 16.477 17.318 16.683 18.786 23.190 26.655 29.699 30.994 33.953

Total 453.094 435.429 499.069 508.309 618.856 665.900 755.277 890.303 980.972 1010.894

57

PRE Working Paper Series

ContactDIIQ Author XL.ftor pa,per

WPS689 Do Tax Policies Stimulate Investment Anwar Shah May 1991 A. Bhallain Physical and Research and John Baffes 37699Development Capital?

WPS690 The Terms-of-Trade Effects from the Gabor Oblath May 1991 J. SmithElimination of State Trading in Soviet- David Tarr 37350Hungarian Trade

WPS691 Can Debt-Reduction Policies Restore Jacques Morisset May 1991 S. King-WatsonInvestment and Economic Growth 31047in Highly Ind'ebted Countries? AMacroeconomic Framework Appliedto Argentina

WPS692 Health Financing in the Poor J. Brunet-Jailly May 1991 0. NadoraCountries: Cost Recovery or Cost 31091Reduction?

WPS693 Report on Adjustment Lending II: Vittorio Corbo May 1991 A. OropesaLessons for Eastern Europe 39075

WPS694 Labor Markets in an Era of Susan Horton May 1991 M. SchreierAdjustment: An Overview Ravi Kanbur 36432

Dipak Mazumdar

WPS695 Long Term Prospects in Eastern ishac Diwan June i991 S. King-WatsonEurope: The Role of External Finance Fernando Saldanha 33730in an Era of Change

WPS696 Macroeconomics of Public Sector Jorge Marshall June 1991 S. JonnakutyDeficits: The Case of Chile Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel 39074

WPS697 Volatility Reversal from Interest Paul D. McNelis June 1991 S. JonnakutyRates to the Real Exchange Rate: Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel 39074Financial Liberalization in Chile,1975-82

WPS698 Tax Policy Options to Promote Andrew Feltenstein June 1991 A. BhallaPrivate Capital Formation in Pakistan Anwar Shah 37699

WPS699 Regulation and Deregulation in Ralph Bradburd June 1991 E. MadronaIndustrial Countries: Some Lessons David R. Ross 37496for LDCs

WPS700 Trade Liberalization and the Oleh Havrylyshyn June 1991 N. CastilloTransition to a Market Economy David Tarr 37961

WPS701 Education and Adjustment: A Review Andrew Noss June 1991 C. Cristobal

of the Literature 33640

PRE Working Paper Series

ContactALtAborefor paper

WPS702 Should Price Reform Proceed Sweder van Wijnbergen June 1991 M. StroudeGradually or in a 'Big Bang?" 38831

WPS703 The Political Economy of Fiscal Sebastian Edwards June 1991 A. BhallaPolicy and Inflation in Developing Guido Tabellini 37699Countries: An Empirical Analysis

WPS704 Costs and Finance of Higher Rosemary Bellew June 1991 C. CristobalEducation in Pakistan Joseph DeStefano 33640

WPS705 What Causes Differences in Abby Rubin Riddell June 1991 C. CristobalAchievement in Zimbabwe's Levi Martin Nyagura 33640Secondary Schools?

WPS706 Successful Nutrition Programs in Eileen Kennedy June 1991 0. NadoraAfrica: What Makes Them Work? 31091

WPS707 Population, Health, and Nutrition: Population, Health, June 1991 0. NadoraFiscal 1990 Sector Review and Nutrition Division, 31091

Population and HumanResources Department

WPS708 Nongovernmental Organizations Jocelyn DeJong June 1991 0. Nadoraand Health Delivery in Sub-Saharan 31091Africa